1951-02-15

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN ONTARIO ORES AND CONCENTRATES

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with regard to cobalt ore.
In order to stimulate further production of cobalt to meet future defence and essential requirements for the metal, the Canadian government will purchase northern Ontario concentrates for a period of three years on the following basis:
For ores and concentrates containing 10-11-99 per cent cobalt-$1.35 per lb. of cobalt contained; containing 12-13-99 per cent cobalt-$1.40 per lb. of cobalt contained; containing 14 per cent or over cobalt-$1.45 per lb. of cobalt contained.
This incentive price schedule will be posted immediately by the Deloro Smelting and Refining Company, acting as buying agents for the government, and that company's smelter facilities will be used to convert such ores and concentrates into metal to establish a Canadian emergency stockpile.
The new price schedule represents an increase of approximately fifty cents per pound of metal. The ores and concentrates shall be purchased by the Deloro company on the basis of assay determinations by the Temiskaming testing laboratory at Cobalt, Ontario, and in minimum shipments of 5-ton lots. The silver content of such shipments will be paid for on the basis of Deloro company's customary tariff.
Cobalt metal is in short supply today. In a defence program cobalt plays a vital role for such essentials as jet blades, tool steels, alnico magnets and tungsten carbide.



IRON ORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, notice of which I have given. The question arises out of a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette of comments made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the production
of Steep Rock and Labrador ore. The minister is reported as stating: "We are taking steps to accelerate production in both areas". Will the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell me a little more in connection with both, particularly with respect to Labrador?


Hon. George Prudham (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me about an hour's notice of his question. The government does not contemplate giving any special assistance to the Labrador iron ore development.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether the statement reported in this morning's Gazette, attributed to him, is correct? Will he tell the house at an early day what the government's plans are for acceleration of the production of iron ore?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I need notice to answer that question. We were notified by the company that they wished to accelerate their program from four years to three years, and we were asked if we would help in expediting materials for the development. We offered to give that help to the accelerated program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which company is the minister referring to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am referring to the Labrador company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister comment
on Steep Rock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Steep Rock advised me that
they wish to accelerate their program, and asked me for the same sort of help. We are endeavouring to give them that help.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   G.F. Higgins@St. John's East: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have given. What is the amount of Newfoundland's financial surplus now on deposit with the government?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice

Inquiries of the Ministry of the question. As he is aware, the arrangement for the deposit of Newfoundland's surplus was made with the government of Newfoundland. I shall communicate with them, and if they have no objection to my giving the information, I shall be happy to do so.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister report to the house whether conversations were recently held with the Saskatchewan government in connection with the South Saskatchewan irrigation project? Has the provincial government agreed to pay $33 million of the costs involved? If so, will the project commence this year?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The last occasion upon which I was in Regina, by appointment I did discuss the matter with the government of Saskatchewan.
The next question, as my hon. friend gave notice of it, is:
Has the provincial government agreed to pay, with the water users, $33 million of the costs involved?
I would rather say that I have a letter from the Saskatchewan government in which they have urged that construction be proceeded with, and have agreed to take as a basis of discussion $33 million on the part of the provincial government, and the farmers and others who are interested, but I would not like to say that they have agreed to make that payment. It was merely suggested as a basis of discussion.
As to the latter part of the question, that is a matter which has not yet been decided. It is a matter of policy to be decided by the government.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there any estimate as to what the federal government's share would be?


James Garfield Gardiner: As has been reported to the house, the estimated total cost is $102 million, and $33 million subtracted from that is what I assume they propose.


Major James William Coldwell: Then you would pay what is in the estimate?



CAMP BORDEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has his department investigated the cause of the very costly fires that have taken place at Camp Borden during the last few months, especially the one that took place the other day?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have had no notice of the question; therefore I am not immediately and completely informed as to the fires to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There was one at the rink to the extent of $250,000, and one in the canteen to the extent of $75,000.


Brooke Claxton: The fires are investigated by the fire marshals of the service concerned, and also by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Where it is considered desirable, there is also a court of inquiry. The results of these reports are given to me, and are very carefully looked into with a view to preventing recurrence in the future, or to the taking of such appropriate action as may be necessary. I should point out that the value of defence property in Canada is very large. Our surveys indicate that the proportionate value of the property destroyed by fire is no greater than that of the property of the civilian population, despite the fact that a good deal of it is highly inflammable.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask a further question? Has the department investigated the use of fire-resisting paint in these buildings?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because it has helped-


Brooke Claxton: Yes, and we use fire-resisting paint wherever it appears to be economical to do so. But to apply any kind of paint to all the wooden buildings of the Department of National Defence at the present time would run into not hundreds of millions of dollars but into billions of dollars.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, sure.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Your buildings would not cost that. There is something wrong there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Use nails instead.

The Address-Mr. Gillis



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have not given him notice. If he is not prepared to answer the question today, perhaps he could do it at the next sitting. Is he aware that some of the exports of salted codfish from Newfoundland are not cleared through the ports of Newfoundland but through ports in the maritime provinces? Will he consider giving the necessary instructions so that these entries may be made at the point of export?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I will have the matter looked into and answer the question later.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had a good deal to say in this debate on the subject of manpower and defence. However, the subamendment now before the house is pretty specific on one point, namely, immediate conscription for the reserve forces, which makes it necessary for me to say a little more on that particular subject.
In my opinion the whole intention of the subamendment is to support the brief or recommendations of the Canadian Legion to the government on the matter of conscription for the reserve forces. I am reasonably sure that when the Legion drafted that program and presented it to the government it was not their intention to put pressure on the government to bring in an ill-considered program of conscription. In my opinion that brief was intended to arouse public opinion as to the gravity of the international situation, and the necessity for Canada's recognizing it and instituting an adequate defence program. It is on that basis I am going to discuss the matter, because I think the representations of the Legion have served the purpose they were intended to serve.
When the recommendations were drawn up, much of the information now at the disposal
of the public and given to hon. members was not known. I think the subamendment is impractical at this time and could not be put into operation, even if the government desired to do so.
In my opinion the most important matter with which the government has to contend is that of manpower. The Legion have recommended that three things be done. First, they say there should be a national registration. Unless there is a national registration it will be impossible to have conscription of any kind for the armed services, whether for the reserve forces or on an over-all basis. National registration, therefore, is the first step that would have to be taken. The suggestion has been made in the house that the census to be taken in June could be used for the purposes of a registration. My own view is that it could not be done. Most of the information gathered for statistical purposes when the census is taken is confidential and could not be dovetailed into a national registration. Such registration would have to be taken for a specific purpose, with a view to determining the age groups that might be called up, where they might be placed, and the like. The passing of the subamendment at this time would place the government in the position of being asked to do something that cannot be done until other steps are first taken.
Secondly, the Legion have asked for the mobilization of industry and resources for purposes of defence. When the recommendation was made, there was very little knowledge throughout the country as to what the government's program for mobilization was. Since coming to this session, and since January through the medium of the press, we have been given a pretty good idea of what the government has done. A special department of government has been set up for that purpose. When one takes a look at the labour force in Canada, the manpower available to work out the program while maintaining the internal economy of the country, one realizes that the subamendment is impractical at this time, because there is no manpower available.
If we instituted conscription for the reserve forces we would draw from the eighteen- and nineteen-year groups. Perhaps we would get about 100,000 young men. Where would we get them? They would have to be taken from the farms, from industry and from many other essential projects the government has already mapped out. We have not got that kind of manpower.
The Financial Post of January 20 outlines in detail the program upon which the government has embarked for defence purposes in industry. For the information of hon. members,

The Address-Mr. Gillis and particularly those who may be supporting the subamendment, I should like to place part of this article on the record. It states:
1.	In nine months the Department of National Defence has placed $700 million of orders for armament construction and supplies. That is twenty times the comparable orders prior to world war II; six times total orders placed in the first year of that war. And for 1951-52 defence spending is likely to be double the 1950-51 rate, with production, not the dollar sign, as the limiting factor.
The emphasis there is on production.
2.	Armament orders for NATO countries are just starting to roll under the $300 million arms aid program. The first order of $40 million went through last week; others pending will reach or exceed $150 million very shortly.
3.	Capital expansion plans for 1951, plus hundreds of millions of dollars of unfinished 1950 business, is at an all-time peak, twenty-two per cent of national production. We are already experiencing critical bottlenecks in materials, which portend imminent and far-reaching controls.
4.	Employment in manufacturing has been sharply rising since June 1; is currently at its post-war peak. Durable goods industries at November 1 employed seven per cent more than November, 1949.
5.	New record employment peaks were reached in November in construction, public utilities, trade and finance. Employment in these groups now totals one and a quarter million, up forty-three per cent from the same month five years ago.
6.	Canada's jobless shelf is pretty bare. On November 4, 1950, we had only 117,000 persons without jobs and seeking work according to D.B.S. labour force survey. This is only two per cent of the civilian labour force at work, against a comparable figure of 13-6 per cent, 573,000, in June, 1939. Applications for employment at N.E.S. offices on December 14 were 207,000-42,000 less than at the same time the previous year.
Practically all of that is connected with the defence program. In order to get the manpower to carry on this job, men have to be siphoned off from organizations and1 industries that are now providing the standard of living we enjoy in Canada. We see that twenty-two per cent of Canada's total production is allocated to defence purposes. This implies that the labour force will have to be augmented. Anyone who thinks that at this time we could embark upon a program of compulsory service in the reserve forces is not being realistic, because we have not the manpower.
Then, we must think of this: we are linked up with the North Atlantic pact countries. There is danger of war in western Europe. Those countries have manpower available, and they are faced with the possibility of attack at any time. They have not the weapons with which to fight; they have not the equipment necessary to enable them properly to defend themselves. On this continent we have the productive capacity, and I believe that under present circumstances the best contribution Canada can make will be

in the field of producing the arms necessary to arm the countries with which we are allied.
In the light of those facts I believe that conscription of any kind for the armed services would be impracticable. If we did accept the subamendment, through which we would be instructing the government to embark upon that kind of program, what kind of conscription would we have? I certainly would not vote to give the power to the government to conscript manpower for the services at this time. I pointed out the last time I spoke that we had a lay-off of over 3,000 automobile workers in Oshawa. Those men could be pressed into the services under economic conscription. I do not like it, and I do not want to see the government embark at this time upon that kind of program, or to possess the powers of compulsion that would enable them to pick up people who might not have jobs.
Here is something else we shall have to watch and guard against. A news dispatch from Bonn, Germany, dated February 8, indicates that 600 Germans are to be trained as miners and then brought to this country to work in the mines of northern Ontario under the supervision of the Canadian Metal Mining Association. If the whole picture with regard to conscription is not clarified, it would mean, as is suggested in this clipping, that 600 Germans could be trained as miners and put to work in the mines of Canada, and then other miners could be conscripted to be sent to Germany to fight. I am not prepared to give the government the opportunity to do that kind of thing until the picture is much clearer than it is at the present time. I should like the Minister of Labour to comment on that particular news dispatch and indicate whether that arrangement is being made with the knowledge and consent of the immigration department. I do not want to see that kind of thing happen.
That there is surplus manpower in Europe is indicated by the fact that groups such as I have mentioned can be brought to this country to work in our industries. I am not going to place myself in the position of being accused of having voted to conscript Canadians for service at a time when Europeans were being brought in to work in the industries of this country. Until the picture is much clearer in this regard I do not think this house should consider for one moment the passing of any measure of conscription for service.
I think the government has met the demands of the Legion for the mobilization of our resources and industries for defence purposes. The figures I have put on the record

indicate that it is a huge program. It is going to require a lot of manpower. I think the request for national registration has been met to some degree in the setting up of the 28-member manpower council. The government has appointed to this council representatives of labour, industry and veterans and women's organizations.
Many times in the last ten years, particularly since the end of the war, I have suggested to the government that basic industries, such as steel, coal, textiles, packing houses, and so on, should be brought under the national labour code. There are good national unions represented in these industries, and industrial councils should be set up on which the unions would be represented as such. Such men would be very valuable in arranging either the reorganization of industry or the reorganization of manpower. Each of them would come to the council with full knowledge of what is going on in his particular industry. The representatives of that industry and of the union could meet with the government, and the government would thus be in possession of complete information as to what is actually happening in the industry.
The best feature of this plan would be that these men would go back to the men in the industry, who would have the assurance that their interests were being protected. They would act as liaison officers between the manpower council and the men who do the work. The workers would trust them. I am always sceptical of having my life planned by men who live in ivory towers. The government has appointed as members of this council the heads of national organizations whose offices are in Ottawa. These men are far removed from the conflicts of life. You live in a vacuum in this city; you get away from realities. The 28-member manpower council which it is proposed to set up is not representative of the men who actually do the work. The men who work in the mines, in the steel and textile plants, are going to be a little sceptical if twenty-eight men living in ivory towers in Ottawa are going to plan their lives for the next five or six years and determine what sacrifices they are to make. I repeat that there should be industrial councils set up under the national code.
Do not forget that one of the greatest dangers this country will face in time of war is sabotage. It is going to be much more difficult to prevent sabotage if the workers are directed from Ottawa to do the things they do not want to do, by people that they do not see, than it is if someone from their
The Address-Mr. Gillis own ranks who has been in on the planning can assure them that their interests are being looked after, and can go back to them and say to them, "This is what has to be done". He would be their direct representative, and he would be a good agent of the board in doing this planning.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), under whose direction this is going to be done, that no decisions affecting any particular industry be made unless the representatives of that industry, both labour and management, are called in, and given an opportunity of saying exactly what should be done, whereupon they can go back to the workers and let them know what has been planned. I suggest to the minister that he do that.
I am against this particular amendment, for the reasons I have indicated. But you still have to do something. In the first place, you still have to build up your reserve forces. That is a must. If we are going to do it on a voluntary basis, certain steps will have to be taken to encourage men to go into the reserve forces. I want to repeat what I said the other day, that there are hundreds of older men on pensions in this country who still have productive capacity. Many would like to work, but because of the means test in connection with veterans allowances and old age pensions they are reluctant to do so; if they did, they would be taken off pension and later would have to go through all the red tape that is necessary to get their pensions back. The manpower of this country could be augmented by these aged people if this suggestion were carried out. I think they would provide a good defence mechanism at this particular time.
In the second place, women's auxiliary corps, such as we had in the last war, should be formed. Hundreds of them would come in if they were appealed to. They could replace personnel in defence headquarters and in many other departments. There are many able-bodied men who might go into the service if they could be released, because they are patriotic enough to recognize the danger that confronts the country today and want to do their duties as citizens.
Third, there are many married women who would come back into industry if they were given some income tax relief. At the present time they do not want to come into industry and earn a few hundred dollars, because by doing so they would put their husbands into the single-person bracket of the income tax. I think a proper incentive by way of tax relief should be given to married women to encourage them to go into industry.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
Moreover, in order to get men to go into the reserve forces I think we must embark upon a program that will provide adequate training facilities. Today they are such as to leave much to be desired. I am not going to elaborate on that point, because last evening the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) did an excellent job, and I agree with everything he said in that respect. The equipment is very poor. In many of the barracks across the country, where the reserve army forces train, you will not find uniforms for the men. There are no shoes for them. In one particular place I saw there were all kinds of shoes if your size was eleven or six, but there was nothing between sizes six and eleven.. It was not good to see a fellow going along with size seven feet in size eleven shoes. He was not doing a very good job of marching. I think the equipment has to be examined.
My fourth suggestion is that the income of $150, $200 or $300 received by reserve army personnel for attending all the drills, and so forth, is taxable. A lot of men do not join the reserve forces for that reason. A boy may be earning $1,500 or $1,600 a year. If he enters the reserve army, takes training, and augments his income by $300 or $400, it shoves him up into another income tax bracket, and he is taking all that training for the income tax department. They take all the money back from him. If you are going to encourage young fellows to take army training, such income should be exempt for income tax purposes. There must be some proper incentive, and unless these things are done we are not going to be able to build up the reserve army.
If the four steps that I have mentioned are taken, I think the requirements of the brief of the Canadian Legion will be met. They presented their brief for the purpose of arousing public opinion. They have succeeded, and it has created a lot of discussion in the house. We all know something more about the situation. Discussion would not have taken place in this house and throughout the country if the Legion had not seen fit to publish their brief. I think the government has met two of their requirements. They cannot meet one of the others, because there is not the manpower to conscript. The reserve army can be built up if the things we have suggested here are done.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their excellent performances on the occasion of their first speeches in the house. Since coming to Ottawa I have been considerably encouraged by the speeches


of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Their speeches indicate that the government has finally wakened to the danger of the world situation and the necessity it imposes on us to increase our defences considerably. As one who has urged this course for the past three years, I welcome the announcement of the Minister of National Defence that our armed forces are to be materially increased, with the particular aim of bringing into being fully equipped forces which will be ready to fight, something in which we have been especially deficient.
The rapidly changing events in Korea and the Far East have occupied the minds of our people to a large extent in the past six or seven months, and have in some degree obscured the more important general picture. They have also led to a good deal of confused thinking. During the short session last September I stated that the basic situation then was no different from what it had been for some time prior to the Korean outbreak, and I still think that is true. Of course the intervention of the Chinese in the Korean war has made the threat of the outbreak of a general world war much greater than it was then.
In considering the world situation, there are four or five important facts that I think we should always keep in mind. All of them have been mentioned at some time or other in various speeches already made during the present session, but I do not think they are generally realized throughout the country; therefore I should like to make a few comments on each one.
First, the Russian communists are engaged in a program of world domination. This view was expressed in the speech from the throne, in the following terms:
The increased1 menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or the fear of force . . .
What this means is that we are in a war now, and in fact in a war of survival. Let us not fool ourselves on that point. It has been called a lukewarm war up to the moment, and because we have been fortunate enough not to come to a red-hot war, a full world conflagration, a great many people still seem to think that we are not in a war at all, and will not be for many years. In other words, there is no sense of urgency among a large number of our people. I think to a considerable extent the government is responsible for this attitude. Members of the cabinet have been making soothing and reassuring speeches on the matter for years, culminating in the

Prime Minister's statement that he did not expect war in his lifetime and that he expected to live for a good number of years- which I trust will be the case.
Of course that is the kind of statement that most people like to hear. It justifies them in sitting back with a sense of complacency and saying that there is no need for them to do anything very much about the defence effort. They say: If the Prime Minister thinks there is not going to be war for several years, why should we worry about it? I do not understand how the government can expect a wholehearted defence effort from our people, in the face of statements that merely encourage them to stick their heads in the sand and to disregard the realities of the situation.
The second fact we should keep in mind is that the only thing that will prevent the Russians from carrying out their designs is superior military power on the part of the western nations. In other words, the only hope of peace is rearmament on our part and on the part of our allies. If the worst happens, and war does come, such a course of rearmament is vital to us if we are to survive. I think this has now been realized by all the democratic nations. Certainly the United States and Great Britain are engaged now in gigantic rearmament programs. However, there seems to be a frightening disinclination on the part of some of the nations of the west to make the sacrifices which full rearmament involves. I am afraid there is an undercurrent of thought to this effect: Let somebody else do it. Not the least guilty of the nations in that regard is Canada. We have not been pulling our full weight in the common defence effort, and apparently the government is still not prepared to do so.
I do not wish to weary the house with a mass of figures to show that this is the case, but I should like to put on the record a few which I think establish it. They are found in the issue of Newsweek of February 5. I wish to refer to an article headed, "Who is giving Ike the most help?", and under that there is a chart with the heading, "Is the burden being shared?" This shows in graphic form the comparative efforts of the nations of the Atlantic pact in regard to manpower and economic effort. As to the manpower effort, the chart shows the number of servicemen per 1,000 of population, and the figures are as follows:
France	 17
United States	 15
Britain	 14
Belgium	 12
The Netherlands	 11
Portugal	 8
Norway	 8
Denmark	 7
The Address-Mr. Harkness
Italy	 7
Luxembourg	 5
Canada	 1
In other words Canada is last; we are the worst of all the allies. These figures were taken as of the end of the year. I cannot vouch for their accuracy, except so far as Canada is concerned. I worked them out for this country and the number is correct; therefore I am quite sure the figures are correct for the other countries as well. Three years hence, if the plans announced by the Minister of National Defence are carried through, our manpower figure on this basis will go up to almost 8 per thousand. By that time, however, the figure for the United States will be up to 23, and the figures for the other countries will be up also. So there is no indication that we are prepared to pull our weight with our allies in the matter of manpower.
We have had a considerable number of speeches by the Prime Minister and supporters of the government to the effect that Canada could make a better contribution to the common cause by producing essential materials and armaments than by supplying military units; but let us look at the figures concerning the economic effort. These are prepared in the form of the percentage of the gross national product which is being devoted to defence expenditures. The gross national product, as I think most people know, is the value of all goods and services sold or produced in the country; and when we look at that figure this is what we see:
Per cent
United States	 16
Britain	 io-3
France	 8-2
Italy	 6-3
The Netherlands	 5-1
Belgium	 4-6
Norway	 4-4
Canada	 4-4
Denmark	 3-4
Luxembourg	 33
Portugal	 3 0


Brooke Claxton: That of course was before the recent announcement of the increased program.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said this was as at the end of last year.


Brooke Claxton: The figures are not accurate, either.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This shows that in economic effort also, at the end of the year we stood eighth, and that our effort was only 27 per cent of the United States effort. That is not a very creditable record in the economic field, or anything we can boast about.
The minister has indicated that these figures do not take into account the increases he

The Address-Mr. Harkness announced. I have already said that in connection with manpower those increases v\?ould bring the figure for Canada up to 8, which would still be very low in comparison with the figures for many of our allies. Our percentage from the economic point of view will also go up, but so will the percentages for the other countries. They will by no means stand still, or at least we hope not; and they have already announced greatly increased efforts in that direction. I think we cannot escape the conclusion that the government is not meeting the realities of the present situation in the plans it has announced so far.
The third point I should like to make is that the potential strength of the western world is much superior to that of the communists. We have much greater resources of vital military materials, such as metals, oil, rubber and so on; and equally important, we have the industrial plant to convert these materials into armaments. This means that, if we have the will to do so, we can build up a much stronger war machine than our enemy. But potential strength is no good; it must be converted into actual armaments in the hands of men trained and ready to use them. It seems to me that so far the government has not displayed the will to do this, and is still stumbling along with half measures.
The fourth point I wish to make is that in any contest between the communists and the western democracies, the vital strategic area is in Europe. There are really in the world four great concentrations of industrial power: the North American continent, western Europe, Russia, and Japan, in that order of importance. At the present time the west has three of them. Our industrial potential is very much greater than that of Russia, but if Russia should move into western Europe and have undisturbed possession of that industrial plant for a few years, we would be in an extremely dangerous position. The situation then would be that the communist industrial potential probably would be equal to and perhaps even greater than our own. That is a situation we dare not permit to come about.
To defend Europe I think there is no doubt that we need German manpower. I first argued in favour of this in this house some two years ago, and since that time, I am glad to say, it has been adopted as a policy by the Atlantic pact nations. I regret, however, that difficulties have arisen in carrying that policy into effect. Those difficulties include the attitude of the Germans themselves; but I was particularly sorry to hear that policy questioned during this debate by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I hope our government will


continue to press for the adoption of the policy of German rearmament.
To reiterate what I have said on several previous occasions, in this struggle with communism we should accept all the allies we can find. Particularly I think we should come to an agreement with Spain and make use of the strategic position of that country, the best on the continent of Europe. We should include it as part of the defences of the west against the communist conquest of the world. Apparently there is a strong move in that direction at the present time. I am glad to see that the United States and Spain have exchanged ambassadors, and I would hope that the other Atlantic pact countries might do the same thing, and in that way help the Spanish people strengthen their bastion, which, if the worst came to the worst, is probably the only area in Europe which could be held in the immediate future.
My fifth point is that in meeting communist aggression it is essential that we have unity among the western powers. I have been greatly disturbed by the differences which have developed between the Atlantic pact countries and other members of the United Nations over Korea and the treatment of China. Differences of opinion as to the course to be followed are bound to exist between democratic countries; that is one of the essentials of the democratic system. However, only harm can come from attacks on the good faith or wisdom of the leaders of the different countries. The United States is by far the most powerful of the western countries, and has been carrying almost the whole burden of the Korean war. It is only to be expected that she should have a major voice in the conduct of that war, and in the decisions made in regard to it. We would expect the same thing as far as the French are concerned in Indo-China and the same thing as far as the British are concerned in Malaya. However, not for a minute do I think that we or the others of the allies of the United States should refrain from putting forth our ideas or giving our advice as to the course to be followed. But this is a different matter altogether from personal attacks on General MacArthur and other United States leaders. It should always be remembered by all of us that General MacArthur is a national hero in the United States; and bitter attacks on him, such as those made by persons and newspapers in this country and Great Britain, serve only to cause anger and bitterness on the part of the people of the United States. They serve no good purpose whatever, and I greatly deplore the fact that that type of attack has been going on. I would hope that in this country at least we shall have no more of it. The important

The Address-Mr. Harkness
thing for us to remember is not to let our differences divide us and thus prevent our making the united all-out effort which is needed to preserve our independence and our existence as a free people.
I should now like to say something about the defence program announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on February 5. It proposes to give us, three years hence, a regular force of 115,000 men, with the major emphasis in this defence build-up on the air arm. With that emphasis I agree. For the past two years the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and others of us in this party have urged a policy of that kind. The first question that came to my mind after the minister's speech was this: Will his program give us the minimum forces necessary for the defence of Canada and to meet our commitments under the United Nations and the Atlantic pact? I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it will do neither. It is not sufficient from either point of view, so far as I can see. When the Korean war broke out in June we had only one battalion up to strength, trained and equipped. We had only one battalion at that time ready for service overseas or, more important than that, ready to meet any attack which might have developed on this country.
Since that time we have raised the special force which is now in training in the United States, with one battalion of it, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, now probably at this very moment committed to action in Korea. In Canada, however, for our own immediate defence we still have only one brigade and that is all; that is the regular army or airborne brigade as it is ordinarily called. I sincerely hope that that force is now up to strength, but we do not know whether it is or not. The minister has not yet said so.
The program the minister set forth calls for the dispatch of a brigade group to Europe, presumably the one training at Fort Lewis. It provides for a total force the equivalent, he said, of one division. This would mean that we would have the equivalent of two brigade groups in Canada. However, to get , that number more units must be raised, particularly in artillery regiments which we are definitely short of. What the word "equivalent" means needs elaboration. Are we to have two brigade groups in Canada or are we to be held to one now in being and some scattered units, having all together the number of men or the strength to make up a brigade group? That is a question to which we should have an answer.
As to the regular brigade group, as we have pointed out before on this side of the house it is a misnomer really to call it a
brigade group. The units of that so-called brigade group have never trained together as a brigade; and, unless it has been done recently, they have had no brigade headquarters which has trained as such. That is another thing which should be done immediately. Headquarters should be set up and the brigade should get some training as a brigade.
I think that the very minimum that we need now in Canada is three brigade groups; that is, actually in the country. But the program announced by the minister does not even call for that number in three years, if we are fortunate enough to have that length of time to get them ready. In my own view they will probably be needed less urgently in three years than they will be needed in the next nine months. If we get through the next three years without war, and if the Russians have not struck in that length of time, I think there is an excellent chance that they will not strike at all; because by then the western world will be so strong militarily that the enemy will not dare to move.
Another question which came to my mind following the minister's speech is this. How rapidly is the program to be implemented? How many ships will we have in commission by the end of 1951? How many air force squadrons will we have in being, how many men equipped with planes and trained to use them will we have by that time? What will be the situation of the army by the end of 1951? The same questions apply with regard to all those three services at the end of 1952. What is to be the rate of implementation? That is another matter on which I hope the minister will elaborate in a later speech.
The most important question of all which came to my mind was this. How does the minister propose to get the men required? In his speech he stated that during the six months up to the end of 1950 there had been a net increase of 14,893; but of this total I believe over 11,000 were for the special force, which leaves a gain for the three regular forces of under 4,000 men. This is a rate of gain of about 8,000 men per year, which is not half enough to meet the program outlined. It is just a little bit more than a third of enough to meet that program. It must also be borne in mind that the special force was enlisted on a short-term basis of eighteen months. That means that within less than a year now the term of those men will be up, and there is no doubt that a good number of them will then leave the service, always on the assumption that by that time no general war has developed. That means of course that there will be another big gap to be
378	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness made up there in relation to what you might call the regular rate of enlistment, in order to get sufficient men.
The minister assured us in his speech that the rate of recruitment is satisfactory, although what I have just said would cast some considerable doubt on that statement; but the minister has been assuring us of that for the past three years. Every year we have been told here that recruiting has been satisfactory. In spite of those assurances we know how defenceless we were when the Korean war developed, some seven or eight months ago. In my opinion the rate of recruitment is far from satisfactory, and unless the government impresses on our people much more strongly than they have yet done the urgency of the situation, I am much afraid that the 115,000-man defence force will never be reached. It certainly does not look like it at the present moment. As a matter of fact, how can one expect young men to be impressed with the need for them in our forces when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) makes the statements he has made with regard to no war in his time, that Lloyd's are betting fifty to one against war by September, and things of that kind? Nothing better could be designed to discourage recruiting than statements of that kind.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a much better statement here on February 1 in regard to manpower. It was a reasonable statement, but it should be followed up at once with a scheme of national registration, so that if the government does find that methods other than the ones now being used are necessary to provide us with the manpower required for defence purposes, either in the forces or in war industries, they will know what the manpower of this country is, where it is, and how it can be best used. Such a step would also enable them speedily to put any change of plan into execution.
All these things take time, and now is the time to take the preliminary steps, not when the emergency develops. National registration should be embarked on at once. A manpower advisory council has been set up. Perhaps this body is the government's first step in a national registration scheme. I do not know, because they have not told us that. What its purpose is, otherwise, is a little difficult for me to understand, because certainly for the council to be able to advise the government properly on manpower such a national survey is necessary. I cannot see that the council can do much otherwise.
The minister did not say much in his speech about the reserve forces. However, as far as the army is concerned particularly, it


is these forces which would be largely responsible for the immediate defence of Canada if war broke out, and which would provide the framework for mobilization. The minister has given us optimistic reports on the conditions of the reserve units during the past three years, and has sought to give the impression that they were in a satisfactory state. The contrary view expressed by members of this party, that reserve units for the most part were inefficient and ineffective because of lack of sufficient men, has now been fully borne out by the report and recommendations of the conference of defence associations, which held its annual meeting only a short time ago.
This conference is composed of representatives from all the military associations, the Armoured Corps Association, the Artillery Association, the Infantry and Army Service Corps, and so on. The men who compose the council of defence associations are the brigadiers in command of reserve brigades and the commanding officers of reserve units-regiments, battalions and so on. They are the men in closest touch with the situation so far as the reserve force is concerned, and they are the men whose advice as to the situation, the efficiency and the needs of that force we must take. I do not think there is any use guessing about the thing and saying that this is the case, or that. These men have made a report and recommendations, and I think that much weight should be attached to it. Part of their report has already been put on the records of this house, so I will not repeat it except for this sentence:
To say that the reserve force is 40,000 strong, and to give the Canadian people the idea that it has 40,000 men who could quickly be ready for action, is a travesty of the facts.
This is a very strong condemnation of the speeches and statements the minister has been making about the reserve forces for the past two years.
In another place the report states:
It is our considered and unanimous opinion that proper value is not being received for much of the public moneys now being spent on the reserve force.
That has been one of our contentions here in the house. We have said that a great deal of money spent by the Department of National Defence was being wasted. We have never been loath to vote money for national defence. There has never been any question about the amount of any estimate. We have urged that it be increased, but we have maintained that a great deal of the money was being wasted, and now the reserve forces people themselves have come out and said that the situation in the reserve is indeed unsatisfactory.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
The report then goes on to make recommendations and it makes them in these terms:
If it is not to be Canadian policy to lean on our allies in the initial stages of a war-and we are satisfied that the national pride of our people will tolerate no such situation-then men must be made available for training now. This will involve a national registration system and the introduction of an enforceable and enforced system of selective service for the reserve force. Only in this way will the reserve force obtain the men it needs, the training it must have, and the effectiveness which the Canadian people are entitled to expect in view of the expenditures. Only in this way can we build a reserve force to which Canada can look with confidence.
Included in that policy was a resolution along these very lines which reads:
Resolved that in the opinion of this conference it is vital to the security of Canada that the government introduce immediately a policy of selective training in the reserve force.
Well, there is the evidence of the men most qualified to know what the situation of the reserve force is, and what should be done in order to make it an effective force.
The Canadian Legion has also made recommendations of the same kind in the brief they submitted to the government. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting them and commending them for their stand and for their campaign called "operation preparedness". It has done more than anything else to bring our defence needs to the attention of the general public. In view of what I have said it is needless to say that I support the Legion brief completely.
This matter of compulsory training in the reserve forces is not a new thing so far as I am concerned. I made a speech in the house two or three years ago in which I advocated that very course. I think that probably I was the first one in Canada to do so publicly. My opinions as to the need for it, and what it will accomplish, have really not changed since that time. As a matter of fact, I think the need has increased. At that time I stated the reasons in some detail as to why I thought this was the only method by which we could provide the minimum defences we need in Canada, without at the same time withdrawing large numbers of men from industry, and also which we could provide at comparatively low cost.
This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke for a considerable time about the fact that compulsory training in the reserve forces was not practicable because it would withdraw too many men from industry. One of the features of it is that it does not withdraw men from industry; it leaves men in the jobs in which they are, and it calls upon them to train one or
two nights a week, and then during the summer to spend two weeks or thereabouts at a summer camp. That is the particular feature of the scheme which makes it of the greatest value to Canada where manpower is one of our great questions. It does not withdraw men from industry; it leaves them at their jobs; it enables them to carry on in their normal life. The entire speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South in that regard was away off the mark. He apparently does not understand the idea of the scheme, or what the scheme is, or he would not have spoken as he did.
It is very easy to say that such a scheme is not practicable, and to point out difficulties in regard to putting it into execution. But all these difficulties could be met if there was the will to meet them. That is what we lack. There is no doubt that such a scheme would give us reserve forces which would be effective, something which we must have if this country is to have just even the minimum of defence protection which it requires.
To look at the matter from another point of view, if no such scheme is put into operation, what is the alternative? It is, practically, I would suggest, to leave ourselves without forces for the immediate defence of this country, and without the framework upon which to mobilize in the event that war should develop. There is no use fooling ourselves any longer. That is what we have been doing for the last two or three years-fooling ourselves that the present reserve force can fulfil those functions. The men in charge of the reserve force have themselves said that they cannot fulfil those functions. If we are to have a reserve force at all, then we must take steps to increase the numbers in it. Far from a large increase in the reserve force by some compulsory means serving to lull the country into a false sense of security, it would actually give it some real security. At the present time we have no security because we have nothing there to provide it.
The argument has been made that compulsory training in the reserve force would make it impossible to have regular units in being, ready for immediate action, and that that is what we need most. I do not think such an argument will stand up for one moment. The present reserve units have considerable numbers of officers and N.C.O.'s who served throughout the war and have been in the reserve force since. They are quite capable of training their own units. They do not need to take large numbers of instructors from the permanent force. As a matter of fact most units do not need to take any instructors from the permanent force. They can carry
380	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness on their own training by themselves. The mobilizations in 1914 and 1939 show that that is so.
When they mobilized in 1939 in Calgary neither my unit nor any other unit of which I am aware had permanent force instructors. We did not have any; we did all our own training ourselves. The same thing can be done so far as the reserve force is concerned. Any idea that we must put thousands of men from the permanent force in as instructors to train the reserve army was disproved by our whole experience in the last two wars.
Another point is that, undoubtedly, a large number of our young men in our reserve force would help recruiting for the regular force. These young men, after some training in the army, the navy, the air force or whatever branch of the service might be chosen, would become interested in military affairs, and I am convinced that a good many of them would wish to make such service a career.
I am convinced that, rather than endanger our regular force, a scheme of this kind would greatly help it.
The question of cost has been mentioned. According to men who know best, money being spent on the reserves is largely wasted.
I believe there is no doubt it would be much better to spend more and to get something effective and worth while, rather than fool ourselves and waste money as we are doing at the present time. I believe everyone admits that, if we are placed in a position where we have to defend ourselves against an aggressor, we must spend the funds necessary to do so. There is no reluctance on that point in any part of the house or country, so far as I know. People are willing to have the money spent that is needed for our defence requirements.
Furthermore, as I said earlier in my remarks, we are not spending at anything like the rate of our allies. We are still not pulling our weight. I do not think this would cost a greatly increased sum of money each year. True, it would be considerable, but I do not think it would be unreasonably great; and it would certainly be much cheaper to have a reserve force capable of doing something than to adopt any other means. It would bring our effort more into line with that of our allies.
Equipment has been mentioned, and the statement made that even if the men were mobilized there is no equipment for them. According to the minister's own statement in the speech he delivered a few days ago there is equipment in Canada sufficient for four divisions. I think that equipment would go some considerable distance toward equipping [Mr. Harkness. 1

the men who would be raised by this method, if such a scheme were put into operation. I suggest therefore that the argument with respect to equipment falls to the ground.
In closing let me say that I shall support the amendment offered by the leader of this party, and I shall also support the subamendment calling for defence preparedness and compulsory service in the reserve force.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this debate; but when the amendment to the amendment was moved I felt that perhaps I should, in view of the fact that I had had some slight knowledge of the reserve force.
I can only conclude after reading the subamendment that it couldi have been moved only for one of two reasons, either because of very bad advice, or for political reasons. I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) would do anything for political reasons, so I must conclude that he was badly advised.
To begin with, I consider the subamendment is most unhappily worded, and its intent is no more satisfying. It shows a lack of understanding of the reserve force which could only be acquired through years of neglecting to study the subject. In the reserve army, which at no time was ever designed for compulsory training, it would be quite impossible under its present set-up to have compulsory training. It would produce great inequalities throughout the country, and would not result in the desired effect.
The evening training, of about two hours' duration an evening, has very limited value, except to those people who join it voluntarily and have some enthusiasm for the subject. If anyone can tell me how people can learn to become soldiers by devoting two hours one or two evenings each week-when anyone who knows anything about the army knows that it takes at least six months' fulltime training to train troops-then I should like to hear about it. I should think that anyone who would make such a suggestion would not know what he was talking about. The answer is that this training is for voluntary enthusiasts who will come to parades in an effort to learn something in the short time available.
To take large numbers of troops and bring them into a reserve army would result in a waste of money and a loss of efficiency and manpower. The only possible way in which the reserve army could be used for training would be to give a longer period of full-time training which, in turn, would take them away from industry.

It is true that the officers and N.C.O.'s in the reserve army could be used for training troops; but definitely they could not be used to train the number of troops which would be involved. For instance in the city of Toronto, a city which, with its suburbs, has a population of about a million people, we have the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Irish Regiment of Canada, the Toronto Scottish, the Queen's Own Rifles, the 48th Highlanders. Those are the infantry units of that city. If we were to take the number of people who would be eligible for the training suggested it is obvious that those units could not possibly contain the number of troops involved. It might be necessary to form perhaps another dozen units in that city, and go through the same involved scheme of building them up. In turn, many more armouries, more drill halls and more places in which to train would be required.
The scheme is fantastic. In addition to all this, when one goes out to the countryside he finds that in many districts there are no facilities for the training of reserve units. The unit would have to be formed, a drill hall built-the start would have to be made from scratch. In some sections it would be possible to give some slight training while in others it would be impossible. Surely the whole basis of a compulsory training scheme is that there shall be equitable training throughout the country.
I was pleased to listen yesterday to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). He gave us a very able, statesmanlike and detached address to which it was a pleasure to listen. For a time I began to think that the Progressive Conservative party might have altered; but, oh no, I find it was just one member of the Conservative party who perhaps has not altered but has expounded a very able and sound view. After listening to the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) I am convinced that the Progressive Conservative party has not changed in any way.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Wait and see.


John William Gordon Hunter: If the hon. member wishes to make a speech I will sit down and he can carry on. There is one thing about the Conservative party that delights me. The members are delightfully consistent in their supreme faith in their ability as strategists and senior officers. It seems to be something that is ingrained in their protoplasm. I could write their speeches myself and I would be delighted to do so for a nominal fee. I am sure they would contain everything the hon.
The Address-Mr. Hunter gentlemen would like to have. I could write them from memory without even drawing a draft.


Mr. Rowe:: The hon. member is not offering a very good advertisement.


John William Gordon Hunter: I am pleased to have the hon. gentleman present and I am glad he came into the chamber for my speech. Let me get back again to the hon. member for Calgary East. He went into quite a discourse as to the use of the reserve army for compulsory military training. I had the honour to command a reserve unit for two years and I think I have some knowledge of the problems that must be met. I spent some time studying those problems. I had the rather unusual honour of commanding our unit after returning from overseas in this war and my father commanded the same unit after his return from the first war.
In referring to the hon. member for Calgary East I do not wish to be personal in any way but I am forced to conclude that his lack of knowledge is exceeded only by his lack of knowledge of his lack of knowledge. If you are going to train troops on a permanent basis obviously you will have to have some sort of selective service scheme. Surely anyone who knows anything about the needs and complexities and difficulties of training, the enormous amount of equipment and material required, must realize that if you are going to train and fit troops for the field it must be done on a full-time basis. The reserve army provides a means of giving enthusiasts a knowledge of the basic training so that when they go into active service they can be got ready much more quickly. That is the obvious basis of the whole reserve army.
If you are going to increase the numbers of the reserve army, unquestionably you will have to increase the number of units, the amount of equipment and everything else. In my opinion the suggestion which has been made is a very unhappy one and is not at all sound from the standpoint of efficient training or the efficient use of manpower.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to say anything more in connection with manpower, but because of the amendment that has been moved I think I should say a few words at this time. I was much impressed with the speech yesterday of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and I should like to congratulate him upon what I think was a very fair speech. I may have provoked him but I admire him for the fact that he took it in good part. No doubt he has had criticism behind the curtains and in the lobby, but he gave a most constructive speech in a fair

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank and able manner. I only wish I had the extensive knowledge of military affairs possessed by the hon. gentleman.
The government might do well to take a little advice from hon. members who have had experience, such as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the member for Nanaimo. We happen to be fortunate in this house in having two men who could not have reached the rank or obtained the decorations they did without outstanding military ability.
I think everyone knows what I said the other day about manpower and the reserve army, but lest there be any misunderstanding on the matter I should like to quote from page 204 of Hansard of February 8 as follows:
I say tonight that I believe we should have compulsory service for the reserve army.
Then in the next column:
That is as far as I can go. I have made my stand here tonight with respect to compulsory service, so far as the reserve army is concerned.
I could go on to conscription, and probably I had better have that on the record as well. I said, and I quote from page 205 of Hansard:
My stand on conscription, when speaking before the Legion, as it is tonight, is that I think it neither desirable nor practicable nor necessary at this time.
I still think that. I am perfectly satisfied with the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to what action will be taken if and when it is necessary. I should like to go back to June 16, 1942, and quote what was said then by the Prime Minister, as follows:
I am convinced that we all want to win the war and that we are all prepared to submit to any measure which may be absolutely necessary. No thinking person can therefore have any objection to the government resorting to conscription for overseas service in the event of absolute necessity.
I did not have the privilege of hearing the Prime Minister when he spoke at the opening of this session, but I have read his speech in Hansard. The rest of you probably heard him speak. I think he made it perfectly clear just what would be done in so far as manpower is concerned if and when it was absolutely necessary to have conscription for the safeguarding of our country. Perhaps we on this side of the house should have more confidence in the Prime Minister than those on the other side. Frankly, I would not be here nor would ninety per cent of the members on this side if it were not for the leader we had. Make no mistake about that.
I have every confidence that if and when the need should arise he will not fail to take whatever steps are necessary. I am still of the opinion that some action should be taken in connection with the reserve army. With all respect to them, I perhaps do not have as much confidence in the reserve army


as some hon. members do. But if we are to have a reserve army they should have sufficient manpower with which to work. We should not have the situation referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) of five officers and four men on parade.
I am afraid we are not going to obtain the necessary results by voluntary methods. But greater efforts should be made to get men into the reserve army. I know in my own district these men could meet certain nights in the week and spend more time in the summer with their training.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) said the other day, and for once I agree with him, that there is no reason why the boys attending college or high school should not be getting training. I know that in my district, which is the purest district in the Dominion of Canada, these boys would be better off if they were taking reserve army training two or three nights a week. This would not be training for the benefit of Canada, for the benefit of their own province or for the benefit of their own riding, it would be training to save their whole way of life. They would be much better off getting that training than attending dances, going to bowling alleys, or following the more enjoyable pursuit we have in western Canada called parking.
I appreciate that it is perhaps not practicable to carry on reserve army training in all parts of Canada at all times of the year. I do not know how it could be done in many parts of Saskatchewan at this time of the year, nor do I think it would be practicable in the northern parts of my own province. I am willing to concede that.
I believe that some method could and should be adopted to augment the services of the reserve army. I know that what I am going to say might not meet the approval of some people. Certain papers might give me a little more favourable report if I took a different stand to that which I take at the present time. During the last war I had the experience of being present in the house during the special session when we had to decide the question of manpower. It would take too long to go through the whole story but I suggest to hon. members that they check what happened in Hansard. Once more I am losing all the Hansards I have around here, but if they will check what I said on page 6868 of Hansard for December 6, 1944, they will see the stand I took at that time, and I have exactly the same opinion now. I hope some of the new members will take the trouble to look it up.

I had. to go against my party at that time, together with two other colleagues. I sat in the rump then, and after I was through speaking I had the great honour of the prime minister of the day coming over, tapping me on the shoulder, and sitting down with me behind the curtain and talking with me for half an hour. I was told by older members that, so far as they could remember, it was the first time it had happened in the history of the house. Usually prime ministers do not cross to the rump to talk to backbenchers. Afterwards we shook hands but nobody knows yet what the then prime minister and I talked about for that period of time.
I still believe that some form of compulsory service could be put into effect to strengthen the reserve army. If the Department of National Defence would become modernized and live in the age in which we are living, I believe there would be a far greater number of voluntary enlistments in the regular army. I had the privilege of accompanying the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) when he visited our part of the country. I do not say this from a partisan point of view but I do not believe that we have ever had a harder working, more able and conscientious minister than the present one. I think I know something about such matters. I did not say it before but I think I know something about soldiering. I accompanied the minister to the airport within my riding. Incidentally, it is as fine an airport as we have in Canada, and I am also of the opinion that our engineering camp is the finest in Canada.
I pointed out to the minister one little thing he could do to encourage enlistment in that very camp. At the present time there are some 200 houses for married men; the government is in the real estate business and rents the houses to them. The government should not be in the real estate business, and I believe that the Department of National Defence should cut the rent of those houses in half tomorrow, particularly for those soldiers who are privates. We should not attempt to make money through renting houses to men who want to enlist and make it their life's work. One man at that camp who did not have the advantage of an education is now spending $2 an hour two nights a week from his own pocket to increase his knowledge of mathematics so as to improve his position in the service. He has two small children, and after he has finished his army work for the day he works five nights a week in a service station in order to support his family. When such men will enlist in the regular army, surely the government can get
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank out of the real estate business, cut the rent and make enlistment more attractive to them.
There are many other ways in which we can make it more attractive. I was very glad to see that we have reduced our so-called standard for officers. If, God forbid, another war should come I hope the Department of National Defence will take their officers from the ranks as we did in the first great war and not men from the Moler barber college, Wellesley college, Rhodes scholars, and, so on. I hope they will take men who qualify for promotion on the battlefronts, as was the case in the first great war.
I want to be brief because I have spoken on this matter before. I said I would support the Canadian Legion's demand for compulsory service in the reserve army. I will support it if the matter can be brought before me in the form that the Legion desires it. My good friends over there, quite sincerely from their point of view, moved an amendment which in my opinion does not represent the desires of the Canadian Legion at all. Let me tell you what I think about it. I think it would just bring about another-and I will use the word although some people do not like it- zombie army and divide Canada as it has never been divided before. It would not be an army that could go and defend us if and when it should become necessary. As another speaker has said, those who moved the amendment have not adopted the attitude they should have. We do not want to have a war in Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec. If we have to fight a war we want to fight it as far away as we can, and we want reinforcements suitable for that purpose.
As I understand it, the amendment would just mean the creation of another zombie army. We would have nothing but dissatisfaction. We know from experience that in the past we could not get such men to even go up to the Aleutians. We know that we had trouble to try to get them on the boats to go over as reinforcements. Therefore let us not divide Canada again in this critical time. Another point brought out yesterday was that we are endeavouring to secure sufficient reinforcements for our armed forces in Korea and possibly elsewhere. In my opinion you can never obtain the reinforcements if you take what available manpower there is and put it by compulsion in another zombie army. That is all such an army would amount to. If we follow that course we will not have reinforcements available. We will not have men for the air force which, as every member with any military knowledge knows, would be the most important part of our armed forces if and when another war comes. The air arm is the force to which we will have to look.

The Address-Mr. Beyerstein We can never secure airmen by compulsion. Any military man knows that. If we drain off the available manpower for another reserve army for service in Canada only I believe we will defeat the very end that every hon. member in all good faith intends to support.
I wanted to make my stand clear, and I still stand by what I said before. If it is possible in any way to recruit strength for the reserve army now-not for defence in Canada only-I would support it. As it is, I am going to oppose the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. H. H. W. Beyerstein (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in this debate will be very brief. I merely wish to take this opportunity to endorse what has already been said by other members of our group concerning the necessity of implementing price and wage controls, and the necessity for supporting a preparedness program for the defence of Canada. The subject of price controls was thoroughly covered by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when he spoke in this debate a few days ago; therefore it is not necessary for me to deal further with it at this time. I merely wish to endorse the facts that he presented when he spoke.
I should like to take a few moments, however, to discuss the question of preparedness in case of a national emergency. I feel that we should give full support to the preparedness program submitted by the Canadian Legion. At the present time the government leaders seem to have divided opinions concerning a program of national preparedness. For example, I have here a clipping from the Calgary Herald of December 30, 1950, which quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as having said:
The situation is of course very serious, but I have said a good many times that I didn't expect to live long enougli to see another world war-and I haven't changed my view.
One has no way of determining how long the Prime Minister intends to live, but in view of the statements of some of the other ministers one may conclude that the Prime Minister was either talking for home consumption or he has lost hope of living to a very great age. On February 8, 1951, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took part in this debate, and at page 179 of Hansard had this to say:
Since parliament met last autumn, world events have moved swiftly. Canada, with the rest of the free world, has had to revise its schedule of preparedness. The challenge of aggressive communism leaves no choice but to move ahead at once, and quickly, with defence preparations planned on a scale never before contemplated except in time of all-out war.


I think that statement gives us a clearer picture of what we are facing at the present time, so I think there can be no doubt about the reasonableness and soundness of the program which has been presented by the Canadian Legion. 1 say there should be no delay in adopting that program. The Legion program, "Operation preparedness", consists of three parts. The first point is a request for national registration. I agree with the Legion that it is necessary to efficiently organize the resources and manpower of this country. The value of national registration in connection with the control of aliens and subversive elements was demonstrated in world war II, and I believe that is a point which should be implemented at the very earliest opportunity.
The second point in the program is the mobilization of industry and resources for defence production. There is no doubt that present supplies are inadequate to meet any increased enlistment in the active and reserve forces. If this situation is allowed to continue until the need arises the ultimate result will be that our hastily mobilized forces will not only be poorly trained but will be tragically lacking in equipment with which to meet an enemy which has been trained since youth, and which would be completely ruthless. Without adequate training it would be very difficult to cope with such an enemy.
The third point in the Legion program is compulsory training in the reserve forces. We must have a definite program which will prevent a repetition of our bitter experience in world war II, when Canadian citizens were committed to battle without adequate training. I am sure not a member of this house would want to see his son in the active army. If that should ever become necessary, however, I am sure he would want his son to have training which would enable him to defend not only himself but his home and his country.
Those are the three main parts of the Legion program. I think we should endorse them wholeheartedly and lose no time in implementing them. If war should come it is highly probable that the Russians would send considerable forces to Alaska, no doubt accompanied by bands of tough Siberian troops who would be landed by air in the Canadian north. Their object in doing this would be to create confusion and alarm, in the hope that it would prevent us from sending troops and material abroad. A second purpose would be to pinpoint our attention on the defence of North America while they extended their hold on Asia and Europe, with ultimately a life and death struggle for possession of this continent. A third purpose in occupying

Alaska would be to hamper the development of our resources. The present lack of population and communications in the north country is a direct threat to the security of this continent. Even the well-advertised Alaska highway is not an all-weather military road, and that is another point which should be considered in the near future.
The problems I have mentioned are too vital to be made a political football, and I challenge the government and some members of the opposition to face the issue. There are those who believe the next war will not require armies, that it will be a push button war. Their idea is that if we have more atomic bombs than the Russians we can win a war within a few days. Those who hold that opinion should take a lesson from Hitler, who thought he could grab Russia in one short blitz. He found he could not, and failed miserably in that attempt. Hitler was surprised to find that Russia could suffer more than five million casualties in the first six months of the war and still muster sufficient forces for counter-offensives which lasted through most of the winter of 1941-42. The Russians are ruthless in their fighting and we must be prepared to meet them. There is no doubt that they would make an attempt to invade Alaska if it should reach the point of war, and I say we should be prepared to meet that emergency.
Then we must have a program of home defence; and in drawing up such a program the utmost care should be taken to come as close as possible to equality of service and sacrifice. There must be no room for such dodges or subterfuges as renting a quarter section of land, or obtaining a false certificate in business. Our program should be made as nearly equitable as possible.
These are the main points that prompted me to take part in this debate. There is one other small matter I should like to mention, however; that is the growing concern over the abolition of rent control. At present approximately a million people in Canada are under the protection of rent control. If that protection should suddenly be removed we would find that people now paying $30 to $40 a month would have their rent increased to perhaps $60 or $70. The people renting homes are usually in the lower income brackets, and cannot afford such an increase.
The cost of living index at the present time stands at 172.5, and a substantial boost in rents would make it almost unbearable for people in the lower income brackets. I was sorry to hear the announcement that probably National Housing Act loans would be curtailed this year. There is still a shortage of homes. It has been said that houses built 80709-25
The Address-Mr. Picard under the National Housing Act scheme take care of only those in the higher income brackets. However, an analysis of 15,000 houses built in 1949 shows that 55 per cent of them were for people in the middle income group, those who were receiving from $2,400 to $3,500 a year; 11 per cent of those 15,000 were built for those in the income bracket below $2,400 a year; and 34 per cent were for those with incomes over $3,500 a year. On analysing the building under the National Housing Act, it will be found that about two-thirds of the homes being built are built by those who are in the middle or lower income brackets. I therefore think it is a pity that the National Housing Act loans should be curtailed at this time, especially when there is such a great shortage of housing in Canada.
Those are the main points I wanted to discuss at this time. In closing I would urge that the government should by all means institute at this session a system of over-all price, wage and rent controls. In addition to that, they should formulate a program of preparedness similar to that suggested by the Canadian Legion, in case of a national emergency. The vote on our subamendment will show whether politics is stronger than the conviction of the individual; and I would urge everyone to support this subamendment.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: As I
rise, Mr. Speaker, I want my first words to be ones of congratulation to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply on the ability and the dignity they showed when they performed their duties. Through you, sir, I think we might extend to Mr. Speaker the congratulations of the house on the way he represented Canada when he was in England last summer. Not only have the pictures which have reached us shown his appearance of dignity but those who were there-and other hon. members will speak with more authority than I do at the moment, because they were there-have told us of his dignity and the splendid manner in which he spoke for Canada.
I had intended, in this debate to speak on international affairs and, since this last motion, on mobilization or on manpower. But I also had in mind that something had been said in the house about one of the important functions of the house, namely that performed by the public accounts committee, of which I have been chairman for the last six years. I therefore thought it might be appropriate at this time for me to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words on the matter.
The public accounts committee is one of the means at the disposal of parliament by which it may exercise control of the expenditure
386	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Picard of public moneys. By "control" I mean the ascertaining of whether the moneys voted by parliament have been wisely spent or wisely used. To quote Durell, at page 117:
. . . the functions of the committee extend, however, beyond the formality of the expenditure to its "wisdom, faithfulness and economy." It should not only act as a check upon extravagant, irregular or unauthorized expenditure, but also, within limits, upon unwise methods of management.
I therefore cannot let go without comment some of the remarks that have been made in this house by some hon. members opposite in the C.C.F. party to the effect that the public accounts committee had not discharged its duties properly. I think that the importance of the house exercising control over public expenditures is such that public confidence in the committee must be safeguarded and kept, so that the public will feel that the committee is performing its duty in the right manner. I therefore propose to devote a few minutes to that question. Then I shall make way for others who may want, at this late stage in the debate, to take part in it.
If we refer to our own House of Commons rules we find in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms that the only reference made to the committee on public accounts is on page 177. Standing order 63, paragraph 1, reads in part as follows:
At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of five members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the house:
. . . (e) On public accounts, to consist of 50 members, 15 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
In the past the custom has been for the government first to appoint the striking committee or committee that prepares the list of members. Then the custom has been to appoint the different committees and subsequently to present a motion to this effect:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
As to the public accounts committee, the tradition has been that the main thing would be to refer to them the report of the Auditor General and the public accounts of the current year. This has been the practice up until now. The committees were usually formed immediately after the address in reply was adopted. Each year up until now this procedure has been followed, and the committee has been appointed and the public accounts have been referred to them. On the other hand, the committee has not sat each year for the last twenty-five years. In the past the custom has been for a member of the committee to write to the chairman or to get in
fMr. Picard.l

touch with him and to suggest that the committee should assemble or to suggest a subject for the work of the committee. In the past twenty-two years the committee has sat only eight times, four of them under my chairmanship. The committee sat in 1929 under the chairmanship of the then hon. member for Cartier, Mr. Sam Jacobs. The committee reported but made no recommendations. It held eleven meetings and heard twelve witnesses, but made no recommendations whatsoever. The committee sat again in 1939, and everybody will remember its object at that time. It conducted what has been called the Bren gun inquiry. Suffice it for me to mention the name. The committee was in the middle of its sittings when the house rose and it did not report. The committee sat for the next time in 1943.
I should say that in 1939 they sat under the chairmanship of Mr. William Fraser. They sat again in 1943 under the chairmanship of Mr. Fraser. They reported after a few meetings, but made no recommendations. The committee sat in 1944, again under Mr. Fraser. They sat four times and made no report. The committee sat in 1945 for the first time under my chairmanship. The committee met informally on November 9, before any work had been referred to it, at the request of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). At that time nothing had been referred to it and the matter suggested for study by the hon. member was an account for the current year, and not an account that was reported in the public accounts.
The chairman ruled that that matter should be brought to the attention of the war expenditures committee that was still in existence during that year. The committee then sat in 1947, again under my chairmanship, although for a few meetings it was under the chairmanship of Mr. Isnor, now Senator Isnor. Twenty-eight meetings were held. Besides the usual perfunctory reports, the committee made five reports of a constructive nature, two of which were over the signature of my colleague, Mr. Isnor, and three over my own.
First of all, the committee studied Bill No. 22 and reported favourably thereon. The committee then studied the question of the Japanese evacuees on the British Columbia coast. It made a thorough study of the problem and made a constructive report on it. The committee also made a study of the administration of the custodian of enemy property concerning the so-called illegal organizations in Canada, and we also reported on the matter.

The committee also heard the Auditor General on the memorandum that he had prepared especially as to his suggestions concerning different aspects of his report; and finally the committee studied the building projects under the Veterans Land Act, administered under the Department of Veterans Affairs, on which the committee reported.
In passing I might note that I as chairman had to make the first draft of three of these reports, and if any hon. member might feel that I was biased and was trying to cover up or protect the government, as has been said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), I might say that in the fifth report, the one concerning the building projects, I was the one who first included a word of censure against the gentleman who was administering that branch. Although he had been a very efficient man in other quarters, I and other members of the committee on all sides of the house considered that he had not shown enough ability in carrying the job he held in charge of the building projects for the veterans. The department evidently took this into consideration because the next summer he was moved to another position owing to the fact that he had previously proven his worth in other endeavours.
In 1949 the committee held only two meetings, and heard the Auditor General. The general elections interrupted the sittings of the committee, with the result that is quite evident in this house at present.
Then the committee sat in 1950, which is the year which has been the object of criticism by some hon. members opposite. The committee held thirty-two meetings, which was the first time in a great many years that the committee had shown such activity. The committee heard seventeen witnesses and presented five constructive reports. When I say "constructive" I do not say it only to be complimentary to the committee, but to signify that they were not only routine reports, which are often made, but rather reports that dealt with conditions that had been brought to the attention of the committee, reports which will have an effect either on the presentation of estimates or, as I have been informed lately, may have an effect on the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, a review of which is to be presented to parliament.
The committee first presented a report on the relationship of estimates to public accounts. It then presented a report on the study of the Auditor General's report. It then went on to report on the sale by the War Assets Corporation to Canadair Limited of property at Cartierville, Quebec. It
80709-25g
The Address-Mr. Picard reported on the sale by War Assets Corporation to Canadian Exploration of Emerald lake, and finally it dealt with other aspects of War Assets Corporation.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. party have thought fit at this session or at the last fall session, or at the end of the previous session, to cast aspersions on the work of the committee and on the chairman. I would not take the trouble to rise if only my humble person was concerned in such a question; but I think the public accounts committee performs one of the most important duties that this house has to perform. I think that the confidence of the public of Canada in its members is most important to our democratic institutions; therefore at this moment I think I ought to tell the facts as to that and present a true picture of the situation to the house to show that really the committee has worked assiduously, and has opened as far as it could the doors to every member to investigate, to question and to do whatever they wanted to do on the different matters that were brought before the committee.
Last fall during the short session a gentleman whom I personally respect highly, namely, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), said this, as quoted at page 632 of Hansard:
The public accounts committee met and we were sidetracked most cleverly into considering the form of the estimates. Ninety per cent of the time of the committee was spent in determining the form in which the estimates should be presented at the next session of parliament.
Except for the fact that I object to the word "sidetracked", and except for the fact of the proportion of ninety per cent, there is something in this. We studied the form of the estimates, but we were not sidetracked into it as I shall show in a moment. It was the committee itself, and the committee with the approval of all members sitting there and without any protest to us, that decided to hear the Auditor General and get whatever memorandum he wished to bring before us. It was not the committee that decided that the Auditor General should come before us and take the estimates. We decided unanimously in the steering committee or the agenda committee when a representative of the other party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), for whom I also have great respect, was there, and who was more or less responsible, more than anybody else, for the committee assembling on that day, because he was the one who had written to me asking that the committee should assemble. He asked that because it was his intention to put before the committee a proposal to the effect

The Address-Mr. Picard that the committee should reconsider reviewing the affairs of, or the moneys spent by, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and the Department of National Defence.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North sent that letter to me, and I immediately assembled the committee. I might say here that that gentleman was made one of the members of the agenda committee. He brought in his proposal. At that time the hon. member for Halifax proposed that we should go into a different type of study. If I may be permitted, I shall quote from the minutes and proceedings of the public accounts committee of April 27, which says:
The chairman stated that the subcommittee had decided to call Mr. Sellar as the first witness. It had been agreed that Mr. Sellar would read a brief, on which he would be questioned, and that when this had been disposed of, the committee would proceed to consideration of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year 1948-49.
Then if I turn to the verbatim report itself, I find I said at the time that the committee on agenda had decided that:
Mr. Sellar be asked first to come before us and to present whatever brief he might feel advisable to submit; and in connection with that, it was agreed that we would not interrupt Mr. Sellar while he was reading his submission but afterwards we would limit our questions to the brief itself, and that then he would go ahead and submit the other material which he wants to place before the committee, and that when he had concluded his submissions the material would be open for discussion. Consideration of the report of the Auditor General itself would be the next order of business. Following that Mr. Stewart suggested that at the conclusion of Mr. Sellar's examination the committee review the accounts of the Department of National Defence as set forth in the public accounts for the fiscal year 1948-49. Mr. Isnor suggested that the superintendent of insurance of the Department of Finance and the director of the annuities branch of the Department of Labour be examined by the committee as to the facilities of their branches. The subcommittee recommended that for the present we would limit ourselves to a study of the report of the Auditor General and subsequently that a further meeting of the steering committee would be held to decide as to the matters that will be taken up.
At that meeting, when this was given as the order of precedence by the chairman, were present the two gentlemen who later in the house criticized by saying they had been sidetracked in considering the question of estimates. Both the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) were there at that time; yet I find no word in the proceedings indicating that they protested in any way by suggesting that some other matter be considered immediately.
I have here a note where the present hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) asked what the order of business would be,


following which the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) spoke. It appears from the record that everyone agreed that should be the order of business at that time. No member rose to his feet and said that he had been sidetracked into doing something he did not want to do. No one objected. Indeed the whole committee approved of that order of business. That was why we called the Auditor General to appear before us. We did not dictate to the Auditor General as to what he should tell us. Here is a man who has been appointed and who, because of a regulation, is, except upon a two-thirds vote of the members of the House of Commons, immune from discharge from his office. Without that vote we can do nothing to him. He is above politics, and during most of the years he has been there has been free in his language, as have his predecessors.
I know of some hon. members on all sides of the house who have thought that, at times, he has expressed his views a little too openly respecting matters of policy. So we cannot say that this man came to that committee with any idea given to him by anyone as to how he should treat this matter or the other. For years the Auditor General had had certain pet ideas as to the way estimates should be presented. He came to us this year and gave us the benefit of his memorandum.
I do not think it would have been fair to the treasury officials, to the comptroller of the treasury or to the House of Commons if we had been satisfied just to listen to the Auditor General and then to have said, "Sir, you are a most important fellow. We will accept whatever you have decided. Let us now move to the next order of business."
In our committee we proceeded in the order I have indicated. Hon. members from all sides questioned the gentleman as to the advisability of his recommendations, some of which were reflected later on in our report, and with some of which we did not agree. We expressed our views upon them. I do not think it would be fair to say that anyone was sidetracked into studying the estimates instead of going into the public accounts.
Later on I shall discuss the question of what should be the order of business in such a committee; but I do object strenuously- especially when it comes from a man so mild in manner, so pleasant and one whom I admire so much as the hon. member for Melfort. I am quite sure he overstated it and did not accurately express his views when he said, "We were sidetracked." He may have felt we should have done something else and, if so, he is free to have his opinion and I will respect it. But when

The Address-Mr. Picard
he says that he was sidetracked, when no objection had come from anywhere, I must object.
Further than that, it is true that we spent a third-not ninety per cent- of our time dealing with the form of the estimates. We spent fourteen out of thirty-two meetings in that work. The evidence to which I have just referred shows that at the time the subcommittee reported no one thought he was being sidetracked, or that anything wrong was being done.
I did not bring with me the large volume of Hansard for last year in which the speech of the hon. member for Moose Jaw appears. However, he repeated almost verbatim the same speech at this session and, for that reason, I felt it unnecessary to bring the large volume to my desk in the chamber. The result is that I have only his words delivered this session, which are sufficient to give an idea of what his views were in committee, and the criticisms he made. In his speech at this session he said:
When we got into the committee, although the members asked for a good deal of information they were not able to get it.
Which is false.
Opposition members asked for witnesses, they asked for figures, and they asked for the public accounts. They asked for many things, but they did not get much satisfaction. We were repeatedly overruled when we sought information, and we were consistently refused the public accounts themselves. I think that the committee sat for three months before it even got to the public accounts.
Well, that is what I call misrepresentation. That is a misleading statement, if there is such a thing. The committee followed the procedure that had been approved by all members of the steering committee who were present. I do not think it is fair to spread throughout the country the suggestion that a committee such as that, the function of which is to control government expenditures, to make sure nothing is wrong with expenditures, and to decide whether proper amounts have been spent, or if expenditures have been made wisely, has misbehaved for political reasons, or that it has failed to help our democratic institutions, as our friends profess to do.
When they say we have spoken too much about estimates, I would refer them to a book that was issued by the treasury in Great Britain. It is for official use, and is called "Parliamentary Supply Procedure".
Item 11 at page 7 states:
It has long been the established usage that important changes in the form of the estimates should not be made or sanctioned by the treasury without their first being submitted to and approved by the public accounts committee.
The Auditor General had suggestions to make. We did not necessarily have to accept them. We recognized his competence over us in matters of accountancy. We recognized that he had a much better grasp of many of those economical and financial problems than we have. Yet, no matter what our way of thinking might have been we had to judge by what we had in our own minds. We could not accept all he said without looking into it carefully. I think there were on the committee enough men of good sense to judge fairly and who were able to assess the value of those suggestions, for the benefit of the public of Canada, to assure the control by parliament in respect of whatever the gentleman might have suggested.
In the same booklet I find this:
-since the form of the estimates directly affects the parliamentary control of expenditure and is intimately connected with the form of the appropriation accounts, the treasury has undertaken to consult the public accounts committee before making or sanctioning important changes of form.
I think it was important that the committee should look into that carefully and a number of sittings were given up to the consideration of that question. I think I can say without divulging any secret that the form in which the estimates will be presented this year will reflect many of the suggestions made last year by the committee. I think the results will satisfy one of two of the hon. members who criticized namely, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) when he sees that our many suggestions were not ignored but were looked into and even incorporated in the new form of the estimates.
When the Auditor General came before us I do not think it would have been right for the committee to say that they would not consider his memorandum, that they would either approve it or reject it. I do not think the committee, in order to please the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), should have taken up the question of how many nails went into this or what material was used somewhere else. I think the committee did its duty by acting as it did.
I am given to understand that these changes will be made at this session and then I hope that hon. members will see that our work has been well done. A most misleading statement was made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw when he said that hon. members had been prevented from asking for information and that the truth had been withheld. Since we were acting under the instructions of the steering committee and were studying the form of the estimates, naturally when the Auditor General was before us we asked him what form he would like the estimates of certain departments to take. We agreed to take as an example the Department of Agriculture.

The Address-Mr. Picard We took that department, not because of any prejudice but simply because it came under "A", the first department. We asked the Auditor General how he would like to see those estimates worded or grouped in the future.
After hearing that gentleman it was our duty to hear the deputy minister of agriculture, the secretary of the treasury board, who is also an assistant deputy minister of finance, and the comptroller of the treasury. As responsible members of this house we obtained such information on the problem as we could get before making our recommendations. I think it was a normal procedure at that time for the committee not to consider whether there should be an elevator at this place or something somewhere else. We had to decide whether the groupings suggested by the Auditor General were the right ones.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw went ahead and asked questions that had nothing to do with the matter before the committee. In order to have the proceedings carried on in a proper manner, the chairman had to rule him out of order. The committee was dealing with the question submitted by the subcommittee and deciding on the form of the estimates, not on how much money should be spent on a particular item. That would come under the public accounts and would be considered later. If we had sat long enough it would have come up later on.
I agree with one suggestion that was made, that the public accounts committee should take a different department each year, look carefully into all the items and ask all the necessary pertinent questions. But I do object to the statement being made that hon. members were sidetracked and were refused information by the committee or were not given the chance to ask for figures. It is a distortion of the fact to say that figures were refused in the committee.
Everything that was pertinent was given, but when a question was out of order, when it did not concern the item under consideration, it was ruled out. I think the chairman of the committee went to great lengths to satisfy hon. members. When the brief on the estimates presented by the Auditor General was disposed of the committee continued with its work of reviewing the Auditor General's report. The report of the committee dated June 15, 1950, deals with the form of the estimates, the number of the items, the wording of the items, the details of estimates, the summary of estimates, the revenue producing services, the vote texts that legislate, the committee on estimates and the public accounts committee.


As I say, after that part of our work was completed we went into the Auditor General's report. The hon. member for Moose Jaw objected that the study of the Auditor General's report was taking up time that should have been employed in studying the public accounts. That is a most misleading statement because in considering the Auditor General's report we were dealing with the public accounts. The report of the Auditor General contains references to certain matters which under the statute he is bound to report to us and other matters to which he considers it his duty to call our attention. Here is what Durell's "Parliamentary Grants" has to say:
In the first place, in dealing with the purely accounting point of view, it (the public accounts committee) necessarily reviews the comptroller and auditor general's report and investigates any irregularities brought to notice in that report. In this respect its examination amounts to an enlarged revision of that report, supplementing it by oral examination both of the accounting officer and of other officers concerned in the expenditure. In point of fact the committee is primarily guided in its line of investigation by the comptroller and auditor general's report, as to the subjects it selects for consideration, though it is not necessarily restricted to the ground covered by that report.
I think that should suffice to show that when the committee took up the study of the Auditor General's report it was acting in a correct way. As I said, the Auditor General is obliged by statute to direct our attention to certain matters and is at liberty to bring other items of the public accounts before us. After we had studied the report of the Auditor General we submitted a second report containing five items. The first item dealt with the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and it was stated that it should be amended to authorize writing off uncollectable debts that have accumulated up to 1940 in the government accounts. The second recommendation was that the government should consider the advisability of revising the International Boundary Waters Act.
The next paragraph stated that the committee was of the opinion that the yearly report of every crown corporation should be referred for study to a select committee of the house. The fourth recommendation was in connection with the post office guarantee fund and the fifth recommendation had to do with the Department of Public Works bearing the cost of office accommodation for all departments. The report reads:
Your committee is of the opinion that departmental heads in co-operation with treasury board officials, the comptroller of the treasury and the Auditor General should examine the advisability of charging each department in respect of the space which it occupies.

Those are important questions, and I do not see that it was wasting the time of the committee or the house to have gone into them. I contend that the committee of last session did valuable work. Before it finally adjourned it also looked into a number of matters brought to its attention by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). At that time, since the committee had already disposed of the two items which had been selected by the steering committee, it might have accepted the idea of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) to proceed right away to investigate one department of the public accounts, but we had had certain remarks by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and had lost one full meeting investigating whether or not it was good policy to have a quinquennial census in the western provinces, and whether we might save a few pennies there.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: More than a million dollars.


Louis-Philippe Picard: The gentleman in charge, who should know better than my hon. friend, came before us and said it was necessary and had to be carried on. From the hon. member's performance that day I think the committee got the impression that it could do better work, work more satisfactory to the people of Canada, by investigating the three matters that had been suggested by the leader of the opposition. The committee might not have had unanimous approval in dealing with them, but I should like to emphasize that it studied them carefully and then reported. My hon. friend cannot say that the committee did1 not use its time well in so doing, and much better than it would have by accepting some of his views that it should go into this or that small question in order to save a few cents by not purchasing nails or hammers for this or that project.
I am convinced of one thing. Since I have been chairman of that committee I have always had the view-and I was fortunate in finding the same view expressed elsewhere -that the essential principle on which parliamentary control is based should not be complicated checks imposed before expenditure takes place but an orderly audit of the expenditure after it has occurred. That is the job of the Auditor General and of a committee of parliament through examination of the results of his audit. If my hon. friend had been in his seat earlier he would have heard what I said in, the first part of my remarks, and I advocate that he should read them in Hansard. I said that for the first time last year the committee sat for any length of time. It had to listen to a long brief from the Auditor General, and it was its duty to report on it.
The Address-Mr. Picard
The committee must perform the actual work of not only going into each department but also, as I suggested a moment ago, digging first into the Auditor General's report. The amount of time spent on that depends on how hon. members put their questions, how they interpret what is in the report, and how they word their questions in order to secure the answers they want. Examination of past expenditures, says Durell, is the best means of informing the House of Commons how to criticize further expenditures. I contend that the committee did valuable work last session. It followed the agenda to which no objection was raised at first by the very few hon. members who later violently criticized our work. As I pointed out a moment ago, material results will come about from the work performed. I am convinced that good results can also be achieved by the committee if the work is performd in the spirit which motivated the inception of the public accounts committee, that is, the verification of whether moneys voted have been well spent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that hi9 time has expired.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I shall only be a few minutes. I will shorten my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Anyway it will oblige the next speaker if I do so because he would not have much time to speak before six o'clock. I shall conclude in a few minutes. Another comment that is not out of place is to point out for the future-and this is directed to my hon. friend as well as to others who may want to bring different matters before the committee-that questions of policy do not come within the purview of the committee on public accounts. The other day my hon. friend said that he intended to have generals, admirals, commodores and so on called before the committee. All right. I may not be there, but it will be all right with the one who is chairman of the committee if it concerns an analysis of how moneys have been spent, but not to determine whether the money should have been voted, not to determine whether these people agree with the policy behind purchasing of these items. The function of the committee is to check on the expenditures and not on whether it was wise to decide to spend this or that. It is there to ascertain whether the money that has been spent has been well spent, whether there is something wrong or crooked about it, or whether everything is all right.
In this connection I might also quote Durell, a recognized authority on the subject

The Address-Mr. Picard in the British House of Commons and in all other commonwealth legislatures. At page 118 Durell says:
The committee is ... in no way concerned with questions of policy in the broader sense.
That would apply to any committee which had as its aim the securing from departmental officials of information as to the what-for and wherefor of the different items, and the criticizing thereof. We have a right to know where the money has gone, how much money has been spent; but whether or not it was voted or recommended wisely is not for the committee to decide. On page 119 Durell says:
The chief obstacle to discussing merit will generally be found in determining the question as to the extent to which administration is involved. The reasons for the limitation in the functions of the committee as regards policy are twofold. In the first place a discussion on questions of policy would imply the right, whether exercised or not, of approving or disapproving of that policy, and might be set up by the department in its defence. Any system, however, which would tend to relieve ministers of their responsibilities in this respect would unduly diminish the control of the executive, and might also diminish the carefulness of the department. There would consequently be insuperable objections to any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to delegate questions of policy to a committee. Ministerial responsibility is an underlying constitutional maxim, and no intervention between the minister and the House of Commons, to which alone he must answer, would be consistent with its satisfactory working. The amount of the estimates or the amount of any particular grant are matters of policy, and it would be entirely outside the scope of the committee to question either, or to investigate the grounds on which they were based. This is true generally, even when the policy is common knowledge; but it may sometimes be the case that items have been inserted in an estimate on grounds of policy based on confidential documents. As the minister could not be called on to divulge these to the house in order to justify his insertion of the items, still less could the department be called on to produce them to the committee for discussion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that personally I believe it is rendering a disservice to our democratic institutions to cast aspersions upon the work of such a committee, especially when those aspersions are founded not on fact but on personal peevish impressions. For a number of years I have had the privilege of sitting on such committees. During the war I sat on the war expenditures committee with several hon. members of the same party to which my hon. friend belongs, members who in my opinion were as faithful to the principles of their party as my hon. friend could be, and I never heard them cast any such aspersions. As chairman of the subcommittee looking into the matter of synthetic rubber I had the opportunity of sitting with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I found him to be a gentleman who carefully

studied all questions, and I am sure he never thought I wanted to hide things, just as I never thought he wanted to do anything which would be detrimental to the country. On the war expenditures committee of 1943 which looked into the question of aluminum, I sat with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I took an active part in the work of that committee, though perhaps not such a prominent part as he took, and I do not think he ever had cause to think I was not performing my duty fully or that I was not unbiased in the way I approached that problem. Nor did I ever think he ever had any wrong intentions in asking his questions. The same thing happened in 1947, when we investigated the matters I mentioned a moment ago. On that committee we had another member of the same party, Mr. Burton. I remember very well, too, that in the war expenditures committee of 1941 or 1942 I voted with three members of the opposition parties to make sure our proceedings would be published. At the time I stated that whatever happened should be divulged, even though it should concern a friend of ours.
So, Mr. Speaker, believing it important not to myself but to parliament to deal with these aspersions that have been cast upon the work of the committee, after the care that committee took to look into the matters brought before it, I thought it my duty to rise and bring this to the attention of the house and state the facts as they really are. In doing so I believe I am performing a service, because if we are to carry on with our democratic institutions it is most important that the people should continue to have confidence in the House of Commons; not in one party in particular, because parties may come and go, but the institutions last. The moment the people become convinced that those institutions are wrong, it is not important what party may be in power; there will be no democracy then.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken will say whether, if he is chairman of that committee this year, the national defence expenditures will be allowed to come before it.


Louis-Philippe Picard: No one knows who will be
chairman this year, because the committees have not been constituted. I do not know whether I am right, but I understand that the lists on our side have been made up, and that the complete lists are being prepared. Once the lists are complete the committees will assemble and choose their chairman. It will be left to the chairman to decide what to recommend to the committee, and it will be left to the committee itself to decide what matters it should take up.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The same as last year, then. At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: In common with all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne offers us an opportunity to bring into the house the views of our constituents and also to place before the house their local problems while they are still fresh in our minds. To my mind, a member of parliament returning to Ottawa after visiting his riding comes here with a knowledge of his people, their needs and their point of view. This personal contact with one's riding makes for greater efficiency in the carrying out of our duties as members of parliament. Having in mind the value of this constituency contact, I should like to see the sessions divided into two parts, with half the session held in the early part of the year, in the spring, and the other half in the fall. This would allow members, particularly those from the west, an opportunity of going home, contacting their constituencies and coming back fresh for the fray. I would of course take it for granted that the first half of the session would be adjourned and reconvened later, in the fall of the year, with just the one indemnity. In that case there would be no extra cost to the government. This would particularly benefit all the members who come from the extreme ends of Canada. I make that as a purely personal suggestion; I have not consulted my colleagues about it; but I believe that hon. members in all parts of the house would be quite satisfied to have the sessions split in that way. Their work would have that freshness resulting from the benefit of close contact with their constituencies to which I referred. I find that matters are brought to our attention that have a great deal of merit and are worthy of consideration, as was the case during my recent visit to my own constituency; and I propose to deal with one or two of them tonight.
First of all, I shall deal briefly with the subamendment that is now before the house. We who have seen service and who understand some of the problems can readily sympathize with the point of view expressed by the Canadian Legion in pressing for compulsory service at this time. This amendment to a certain extent follows the line of argument of the Canadian Legion. I believe we have made certain commitments to the Atlantic pact group and to the United Nations with regard to the supply of manpower; and 80709-26
The Address-Mr. Jones before we could deal adequately with the proposals for compulsory service made in this subamendment, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) this question: Are we now able, through the voluntary enlistment method, to provide all the manpower that we have been committed to supply to those two groups? I should also like to ask him:	Are we supplying all the
personnel that has been requested of us by those two groups? Of course that includes our own national defence personnel. In other words, are we prepared to meet our commitments on the voluntary basis of enlistment? These questions should be answered before we could deal with this subamendment adequately. Instead of our talking of defence and armaments continually, I believe we should hear more in this house and outside of it-through the press and through all channels of thought and action in Canada- about sound proposals for peace that will be acceptable to those who now threaten us with aggression. Not this evening but later on I should like to deal with that matter. I feel that all hon. members should give more attention to the question: Are we doing all that we can to bring about world peace or are we just so obsessed with the idea of defence and the idea that we must prepare to withstand aggression that we have overlooked the fact that there is a possible solution to our problems by expressing tolerance and a willingness to work with the possible enemy towards ultimate peace.
The frank and, I might say, courageous statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) recently has given comfort and relief to many Canadians who up to that time entertained-and justifiably so, I think -fears that the question of conscription would be sidestepped as has long been the case in the history of Canada. I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that the Legion brief was prepared some time before the Prime Minister made that statement and was based on the assumption that Canada would be torn by strife and turmoil should we find ourselves faced with a manpower or defence emergency, as was the case during the first and second wars. The subamendment calling for compulsory service in the reserve forces, if carried out- and I take it that their intention is complete compulsory service-would call all ablebodied men to the reserve forces. With the I.Q. requirements and the physical requirements for the reserve army much lower than those for the regular army, plus the extended age limit that covers that group, I feel that these lower standards could bring together close to 10 per cent of our population. If such be the case, we would call to the colours
394	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jones
1.400.000	men. But let us say that only five per cent would be affected. In that case
700.000	men would be called up for training in the reserve forces.
I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has already pointed out our position with regard to equipment and suitable quarters. I think he showed clearly that Canada is not prepared to take care of the training of anything like 700,000 men, and possibly not even 100,000 men. I therefore feel that more thought has to be given to the suggestion of the Canadian Legion and that a -more balanced approach has to be reached before we can do anything about it. I do not think for a moment that the present reserve facilities could stand the strain of this vastly increased number of personnel. Compulsory service is a step that may have to be taken later on; and we have from the Prime Minister the assurance that should the need arise the government would put that system into effect. In the meantime, establishments and equipment of the reserve army should receive the immediate attention of the Minister of National Defence. I believe that a survey made today of the eligible men in any town in Canada, asking their reasons for not joining the reserve army on a voluntary basis, would give sufficient answers with regard to the numerous kicks and dissatisfactions that are prevalent throughout Canada about the present set-up of the reserve army so that it would give the minister a sound background of knowledge as to how to improve those conditions that are now barring the entry of men into the service, by eliminating several of the causes of complaint. I admit that some of them are trivial, but nevertheless they are causes of complaint.
Closely tied up with the subject of the reserve army is the question of civil defence.
I propose to deal briefly with this subject. It is well known to everyone that the legal responsibility for the defence of Canada is a federal one. The defence, or protection of our people from attack, the defence of Canada, the protection of our homes, the persons living in those homes, in our towns and on the farms is an obligation of the federal government. It is the duty of the government to be prepared to meet any onslaught or any attack that might possibly be made by any potential enemy. While the war may be in Europe or Asia or in our own country, the object of our participation in it is based on the same principle, namely, the defence of Canadian homes and the Canadian way of life.
Civil defence fits into this picture. It is actually indivisible from the over-all picture. Again I say, although it is localized in municipalities and with provincial governments,
fMr. Jones.]

it is still the obligation of the federal government to provide the funds for civil defence. At the present time the participation of the municipalities is on a voluntary basis, and is auxiliary to the general plan. The participation of the hard-pressed municipalities should be restricted entirely to the providing of personnel. The funds should come from parliament, and they should be a direct charge on the $5 billion program that this government proposes to pass at this session.
I would suggest that as a first step toward making this body efficient, training classes should be held in our schools; that classes for civil defence, particularly in the higher grade schools, should be held previously, giving instructions to selected teachers during either the Easter recess or the summer recess, if that is soon enough, and training them to come back to their pupils, and help them to become part and parcel of the local civil defence in the town wherever they may happen to live. I know that this worked wonders in England during the blitz, because they had something of the nature of trained personnel in all localities.
I agree with hon. members who have already spoken that the first step that should be taken is a program of national registration. I believe that is urgent. In spite of the fact that it has been said it cannot be done, I should like to see an effort made to combine national registration of this type with the census. In England only through national registration were they able to determine how many people lived in a certain blitzed house. After they had counted the number rescued the list showed that there were two or three others still unaccounted for. They went on and worked until all were accounted for. In Canada, particularly in Ottawa, I doubt whether the residents living in an apartment house themselves know how many people are living there. They definitely do not know all the names. In the event of aggression and, shall we say, demolition of one of these apartment houses, we would be at a total loss to know how long to go on searching the ruins for the injured and killed, no registered list being available.
I also feel that help should be given the municipalities to provide fire fighting equipment. In the matter of providing fire fighting equipment the same problem is facing the municipalities as is facing the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), namely, lack of standardization. I would suggest that now is the time, if any help is given by the federal government to the municipalities to provide fire fighting equipment, to see that they have standardized couplings, connections and so on, on all the equipment supplied so that

that equipment could be transferred to another community that might be in difficulties and needed it. Until that is done I am afraid that the equipment in some towns in Canada would be totally unsuitable for other towns, because there is no standardization of couplings and connections.
I do not believe that the question of civil defence calls for secrecy. I do not believe it calls for the secrecy that naturally the general defence of the country demands. I believe that publicity is essential in this instance, a full knowledge of the gravity of the situation, and a full knowledge of the part that our citizens are expected to play in the event of a catastrophe. With the facts known you will get greater co-operation, and people will be willing to take their part and meet their obligation to the community.
Hospital supplies should be checked immediately to make sure that they are adequate for any eventuality. Food supplies should be placed in cold storages. I have in mind the fact that last year one of our British Columbia communities was cut off for a matter of two or three weeks, and it was completely out of food. That was not one isolated case. That could happen in any community in Canada, because few communities carry more than two or three weeks' supply of food at any given time in their cold storages. We should encourage merchants, wholesalers and all food suppliers to put large quantities of food in cold storage at the present time as part of our civil defence. I hold in my hand a publication issued by the government dealing mainly with ways and means of combating it in the event that aggressive war should be directed at Canadian targets. On reading it I find that it missed one important point, and that important point in my opinion is the possible sabotage that may follow aggres;-sion by a potential enemy, in this case Russia.
We know that in our midst there are men who would carry out a program of sabotage to assist the enemy immediately. Probably they are not numerous, but we have them. Possibly they are scattered all over this dominion ready to play their part, not for Canada but for a possible enemy. Men of this type can do more damage in a month or so to the economy of the country than can an aerial attack, by damaging the water, light, power and sanitation systems. I suggest that that matter be given serious consideration and included in this book for the information of the people who are making use of this as a basis of civil defence.
I find that the municipalities in British Columbia are willing to co-operate in every way they can; but with the high cost of education, hospitalization, social services and 80709-265
The Address-Mr. Jones other commitments, they definitely have not the money and they are looking to the government for help.
In this booklet there is a chapter dealing with one important matter, namely, the dispersal of industry. I believe not only in the dispersal of industry, but in the dispersal of population, as they offer the poorest target to any enemy aircraft that may come to this country. I would urge the government to use its influence now with these departments that are spending a billion dollars, when they ask the industry to accept a contract, or a contract is given. If it has to start a new plant it should be asked to try and find a location in Canada where it would help the local conditions and where it would become dispersed.
I could tell of several areas in British Columbia, hidden in the mountains where no enemy could find them. Near towns such as Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon and Grand Forks would be ideal for industries of this nature. I would not say this would include industries calling for 10,000 or 20,000 men; but industries calling for anything from 100 to 1,000 men could be ideally located both as to the availability of power and manpower, and protection from potential enemies.
If the government is going to take part in establishing a steel industry in British Columbia I would suggest that it give consideration to what is known as the Princeton area. In that area are found some of the largest coal deposits in British Columbia, as yet untouched. The mines there have been operating for about thirty years, and up to this date only about 4 per cent of the known coal has been mined. About 96 per cent of the coal in that area is still available. This affords cheap power, and to my mind would be ideal for the establishment of a steel industry.
In line with the suggestion by my hon. friend, that this debate affords opportunity to place local problems before the house, I would draw the attention of the government to the recent floods in the Fraser valley and in my own riding at Princeton. Our valleys, because they are valleys, are conducive to flood conditions. At the same time they offer means of control by way of dams. Such controls are not possible on the prairies.
Three years ago the Okanagan valley suffered a severe flood. It was so alarming that the government took steps to remove the possibilities of a recurrence. A commission of engineers was appointed, and it came to the conclusion that controls were feasible and possible. With that in mind the commission made recommendations to the government,

The Address-Mr. Jones and money has been provided in the estimates. However, the work has not yet commenced. This year in that valley we are particularly alarmed by the potential danger of similar floods in the current year. We understand that the lack of government action has been caused in one instance through not having been able to negotiate the purchase of land from Indians. I believe that could be overcome. The difficulty in the other case was through having to supply fish ladders at the request of the state of Washington. This, too, can be overcome. I would ask the government to speed the work. The people whose lands and homes are subject to these floods have been waiting anxiously for the government to implement its promise. I realize it is possibly too late to help to stem floods in the natural way, because we have been logging fairly heavily the territory that supplies the moisture which causes the floods. The denuding of the land has possibly added to the condition from which we suffer. At the same time the silted river outlets retard the flow, and a crooked river has to be straightened out. All this is known to the government, through its engineers.
I suggest to the government it would be far cheaper to have this work done now, because if the money is not now spent and if the work is not carried out the damage that may be caused, through a flood similar to that of three years ago, would cost the government more money by way of compensation than would be required to carry out this work at the present time.
One other matter I would draw to the attention of the government has to do with our fruit industry. I do not know whether hon. members are fully aware of the value of the British Columbia fruit industry to the economy of Canada. For the information of the house I shall place on record some figures showing the growth of the industry. In 1920 we shipped 43,000 tons of fruit and vegetables from the valley. This was contained in 2,600 carloads. In 1949 we shipped 258,600 tons, or 16,162 carloads. The freight revenue to the railways from these shipments, during the same period of time, had increased from half a million dollars to $8,500,000, plus the increased inbound traffic.
Employees in this industry have grown in number, i.e., in the packing houses, shook mills, processing plants and so on from less than a thousand in 1920 to over 8,000 in 1949. During that period payrolls jumped from $300,000 to between $8 million and $9 million. I am bringing these matters to the attention of the house because this prosperous industry received a severe shock last winter, caused by the frost-something which


is most unusual in our part of Canada. That frost took a toll of 336,610 trees. I am giving the correct figure, because the information was secured through a count made under the auspices of the provincial government. The average loss would be about 20 per cent. Some districts lost as much as 54 per cent, and some individual growers lost 100 per cent of their trees. The over-all loss to growers can best be shown by referring to specific fruits such as peaches, cherries, apricots, pears, plums and prunes. The crop sold in 1949 for $7,484,874 while in 1950, after the loss, it sold for $1,832,691. In other words the crop loss, exclusive of apples, was $5,652,183.
These people are not asking for compensation for that loss; they are asking for assistance, and I believe assistance is now being negotiated between the provincial and federal governments, and consideration is being given as to what assistance they will or can provide. I hope the federal government will go out of its way to show its desire to rehabilitate these men on the land and make them once again prosperous taxpayers, as they once were. This applies particularly to those who suffered to the extent of 50 or 100 per cent. As I said, these people are not asking for charity; they are asking for compensation to replace trees, and for long-term loans to cover replanting, living costs, fixed charges, taxes, irrigation, spraying and the like.
Hon. members perhaps know that it takes eight years to bring an orchard to the point of bearing. These people are willing to bring their orchards to that point, if they can be financed during that eight-year period. They would like to get loans through one of the government agencies at 2 or 2J per cent. This would re-establish, not newcomers to Canada but experienced farmers, farmers who have had twenty or thirty years' experience in the growing of fruit. This form of help would rehabilitate men who have contributed to the country, and who still have something to contribute to the economy of this dominion. Many of them are veterans; some are veterans of the first world war and they have been badly hit. Farmers in other parts of Canada have been rehabilitated in the past, and I do not think we would be breaking new ground if in this case the government saw fit to assist the farmers of the Okanagan valley.
Naturally this disaster has definite results on the workers, many of whom worked part time as pickers, thinners and general orchard workers. These people go to the packing houses for part of the year, and while there they are called upon to pay unemployment insurance. But they do not pay this when

they are on the farm and the combined period does not permit them to benefit under the act. The industry is having difficulty in getting help and one reason is that many men are leaving the farms because farm work offers no protection for the worker. This particular organization, possibly the largest in Canada, the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, was asked to support a resolution produced by the workers asking that they be afforded the benefit of unemployment insurance. I think their claim is fair and just and I should like to place this resolution on the record. It originated in Peach-land and reads:
Whereas employees in most industries are now covered by unemployment insurance, and agricultural workers are not, and
Whereas this has the effect of sending the more responsible type of worker from the land to other industries with the consequent tendency not only to lower the standard of farm help available but also to make farm help increasingly difficult to secure:
Therefore be it resolved that this 1951 B.C.F.G.A. convention request the federal government to make unemployment insurance available to agricultural workers in cases where such workers desire to be covered by this insurance.
I understand there are certain difficulties that would have to be overcome in connection with extending the benefits of unemployment insurance to farm workers, and one difficulty is caused by the nature of the industry. The farms are scattered all across the dominion and it would be quite difficult for the auditors to carry on their work. One suggestion has been made, which I endorse, that when farmers come under the scheme on a voluntary basis they should be [DOT] willing to agree, and I am quite sure they would, to bring their books to a central point at a given time each year for auditing, possibly the nearest town.
One other matter I should like to refer to before I close is the Vernon campsite. Last summer I visited this campsite once or twice and the people in the district asked me, and I think quite rightly, why the Canadian government had sent troops to be trained at Fort Lewis. Fort Lewis and the area surrounding is all flat country, almost like the prairies, while the terrain around Vernon is hilly, and in many respects similar to the terrain of Korea. It would be ideal for training when the conditions are so similar.
In addition the climate is excellent and the facilities are already there. Light and water is available and sanitation facilities. Thousands of troops were trained here during the last war and all these facilities are available today. I understand that roughly 9,000 men were sent to Fort Lewis and the government is paying a premium at the rate of $40 per month for officers and $20 per month for
The Address-Mr. Green men. On the basis of 1,000 officers and 8,000 men it means that Canada is paying a premium of $200,000 per month in order to have men trained at Fort Lewis, and that is in addition to the pay and other expenditures that are being expended in United States dollars which a few months ago we were told were so scarce that they had to be withheld from ordinary industrial ventures.
The government should consider bringing these men back to Canada to complete their training, and I suggest that they be sent to Vernon because I know it is suitable. I suggest they be brought back before this extra cost of $200,000 a month accumulates and takes too large a bite out of our $5,000 million program.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment under debate seeks to add a paragraph to the amendment which was moved the other day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). The new paragraph would read as follows:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
4. To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
That subamendment contains three parts. First of all it stresses preparedness and the necessity of a complete program for that purpose. Secondly, it includes, as only one aspect of that preparedness, compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence. Thirdly, it contains a very important reference to equality of sacrifice and service. I propose to divide my remarks this evening into three similar parts.
I believe that this is one of the most important amendments that have come before this House of Commons in the fifteen years I have been privileged to be a member representing one of the seats in the western city of Vancouver. I may say at the beginning that it is my intention to support the subamendment. I give credit for honesty of purpose to all hon. members who have spoken on this amendment, including those who belong to my own party, and also any hon. members who will be speaking before the vote is taken. All I ask is that I be given the same credit.
There is room for various opinions in discussing the subjects raised by this subamendment. I believe that those subjects are better discussed now than after war begins. We can debate them calmly and with reason. There is no excuse for bitterness or tension in a debate on this amendment at the present


advocates and what the Canadian Legion advocate is that the units of the reserve forces be brought up to strength by compulsory service. That is an entirely different thing.
Here again I suggest that the government set the number and the kind required, choose them by lot from the groups best fitted to serve, and let others volunteer if they wish to do so. In that way we shall get in our reserve forces the men best able to do the job. Operational units, such as our anti-aircraft regiments, our radar units and our coast defence regiments wiT be able to fulfil their functions. The men in the reserve army will get at least partial training; and how important training was when the Department of National Defence were trying to get young Canadians to enlist for the special service force! I have here in my hand their advertisement of August 8, 1950. The words printed across the bottom are as follows:
Armed aggression must be met with trained united strength.
That was true then and it is even more true today; and it applies to the reserve forces as well as to the active forces. Taking the action I suggest would certainly cut down the time in which these reserve units could get into action; and time is of the essence in this business of fighting a war in 1951. It would also give the reserve units a chance to do their job, and that job is to defend Canada.
Arguments have been made about the practicability of such a plan. I believe that the men in the Legion have just about as good an idea as anybody in Canada as to what is or what is not practicable in the matter of defending this country. There you have a body of Canadians who are just as responsible in their thinking and in their action as any group of Canadians in the nation, including the group sitting here in the House of Commons. These men of the Canadian Legion do not take steps without the most careful consideration or without believing that the steps they are advocating are right. The fact that they have advocated such a step in itself shows the practicability of that step. There are others whom one might call in support of the practicability of this measure. I have here a press dispatch from Victoria, dated February 3 of this year. It is headed "Call-up Ruling Bad News for Reserve Unit" and reads as follows:
Disappointment was expressed in reserve army circles here today over the government's decision there will be no call-up of young men to fill the badly under-strength reserve battalions of this area,
"If that's the way it is, we'll just have to continue as best we can and hope voluntary enlistments will resume at the January rate," said Lt. Col. Walter Mosedale, commander of the First battalion, the Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's).

We hope, however, the government will see fit to provide some additional compensation to make the reserve army more attractive to young men.
Then I have another witness here, namely Major-General M. H. S. Penhale, C.B.E., C.B., who has been the general officer commanding western command, and has now retired. He was questioned about this Legion plan less than a month ago. In fact, the press dispatch is dated just one month ago tonight. Here is what he had to say:
"There are so many competing interests and activities, it is difficult to persuade men to devote their time to the reserve."
General Penhale said he supported the Canadian Legion stand for compulsory military training in the reserve force.
"Every other country has had to come to compulsory training. I don't know why we should he privileged," he said.
His statement to the other Vancouver evening paper was to the same effect. The dispatch reads as follows:
Canada's reserve army needs more men, says Major-General M. H. S. Penhale, retiring general officer commanding western command.
Interviewed here on his farewell visit to Pacific coast military units, the army chief declared: "I am in favour of any scheme that will fill up the ranks of the reserve force."
Asked if he favoured the Canadian Legion plea for compulsory military training service for all Canadian youth, he replied indirectly:
"Just about every other country has had to come to this."
Then there is the submission made by the conference of defence associations. Portions of that have been read by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). I do not intend to read all of it this evening, but there are one or two portions which I think should be read to this house. These are statements by the men who are responsible primarily for the reserve army of Canada:
The threat of war has never been greater. The need for strength if war is to be averted and to meet that danger if it comes is recognized by every democratic country in the world, including our own. It is admitted that to successfully prosecute a war against our potential enemies will take every effort the free countries of the world can put forth. Every country of the Atlantic pact, with the sole exceptions of Canada and Iceland, has adopted some form of selective service. In all these countries, including our own, vast sums are to be spent on the armed services.
Reserve units have been asked to recruit to strength, if possible. The need for strong reserve units is therefore recognized.
Years of experience have taught us all that to obtain anything like the number of men now required in the reserve force by voluntary means is impossible. Large sums have been spent on advertising and in other ways to induce men to join the reserve force. To a large extent, such moneys have been wasted. The men have not been and are not coming forward.
The men represented through the conference have exhausted every effort to improve these conditions and have sacrificed time and their own money in such efforts.
The Address-Mr. Green The delegates to the conference feel that, since the effectiveness and efficiency of the reserve force is largely their responsibility, and that of the men they represent, they would be derelict in their duty to the government and to their fellow countrymen if they did not put before that government and the people of Canada their views as to the present state of the reserve force.
Then they go on to deal with the fact that we are not getting value for our money, and continue:
In spite of the existing shortages of facilities for the reserve force, in many places the strength of units does not absorb present facilities for training by a substantial margin. Far more men could be trained in the reserve force than are presently coming forward.
The turnover of other ranks is such that the vast majority of men who appear from time to time on the nominal rolls of reserve force units receive no training worthy of the name. They do not stay with the unit long enough. To say that the reserve force is 40,000 strong, and to give the Canadian people the idea that it has 40,000 men who could quickly be ready for action, is a travesty of the facts. There are few, if any, reserve units in Canada that could be ready to function in action under a minimum period of six months. This includes anti-aircraft and other such units which should be ready for immediate action. The Canadian public, in spite of the moneys spent, cannot look to effective and efficient protection from internal sabotage or external aggression from its reserve force for a considerable period after war breaks out, and the active force is far too small to undertake the full burden of such duties.
The modern army, with modern equipment, requires vast numbers of men specially trained. These men are termed tradesmen or specialists. The shortage of such men, most of whom require many months of training, in addition to their ordinary training as soldiers, is almost total in the Canadian reserve force-and there is not the slightest hope of producing the numbers required under the present voluntary system.
They go on to point out:
If it is not to be Canadian policy to lean on our allies in the initial stages of a war-and we are satisfied that the national pride of our people will tolerate no such situation-then men must be made available for training now.
This will involve a national registration system and the introduction of an enforceable and enforced system of selective service for the reserve force. Only in this way will the reserve force obtain the men it needs, the training it must have, and the effectiveness which the Canadian people are entitled to expect in view of the expenditures involved. Only in this way can we build a reserve force to which Canada can look with confidence.
The minister offers no other way. In his speech the other evening he did not answer this question as to how reserve forces were to be raised. By the way, I also have a clipping from the dominion executive of the Naval Officers Association of Canada setting out that the situation in the naval reserve is much the same. The minister offers no other way. In other words, the government is failing to ensure preparedness for Canada, and if for no other reason I would vote for this amendment in an attempt to force some action by the government.

The Address-Mr. Goode
The third part of the subamendment is equality of sacrifice and service. That means equality of sacrifice and service in fighting, in dying; equality in preparing to defend Canada, and equality as between the men in the forces and the civilians, and do not forget that we are now in a time when prices are running wild. I believe it will be far more difficult to prevent profiteering in the years immediately ahead than it was during the last world war.
In 1939 when this house met on the outbreak of war a determination was expressed by practically every hon. member who spoke, that there must be equality of sacrifice and service, referring particularly to the men in the forces and the civilians. In this debate practically no mention has been made of that principle. No plans have been envisaged which keep that principle in mind. I think it is a very significant thing, and a very tragic thing, that there has not been more emphasis placed on equality of sacrifice and service. That is a policy which must be kept always in our minds and before the Canadian people.
Today there is far too much of the attitude that this is somebody else's war in Korea, some other country is in danger, not Canada. There is far too much of that attitude. This house and the Canadian people are not yet facing realities, although today young Canadian lads in the Princess Pats are moving up the frozen dirt roads of Korea to the battle line, going to what for many of them means death.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the last few days we have listened to two members of the Legion offer two different ideas; one has just resumed his seat, the other was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). Yesterday, the hon. member for Nanaimo spoke as a great Canadian. He also, although he did not know it until this moment, is a former officer-commanding of mine in the second world war. Since listening to his ideas yesterday and the ideas of the hon. member for Vamicouver-Quadra tonight, the latter speech based on half a dozen newspaper clippings, the other hon. gentleman speaking from his own experience, I am willing to go along with my former O.C.
Much is being made of this idea of compulsory service in the reserve force. I am speaking only about the Vancouver situation. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that the Seaforths had the equipment for 900 men. I know that at Bessborough, for instance, which was the headquarters of my old regiment, you could perhaps put 250 men on parade, but I certainly could not have done any training at that time. The hon. 
member for Nanaimo knows the place very well. Where are these men that you are going to call into the reserve force going to be trained? I can say from the artillery angle perhaps better than any other that it takes at least two years to put a man on a twenty-five pounder and train him properly. You cannot do it in less time. They tell us here that three nights a week with two hours a night can train men for the defence of Canada. Three nights a week and two hours a night mean thirty days of training in a year. In thirty days in the last war we just about got a man ready to be able to put his hat on properly and find out where the cookhouse was, and perhaps he knew how to wear his uniform properly, and that is all the time we had.
During the last war I was in the instructional cadres of most of the training centres in Canada, and on coast defence, and I think it can be said that you cannot train men on part-time service. We have seen reserve forces go out with the twenty-five pounders on the coast and, with all due respect to them, while they do a very good job 1 doubt very much whether they would be much use in Korea.
There is only one way to get men into the army and to train them properly. The Prime Minister said the other day that when the time comes action, and proper action, will be taken. The proper action at that time, if we need men, is compulsory service, conscription, or whatever you wish to call it; and that is what I am in favour of, at the proper time. This compulsory service in the reserve force was perhaps a fine idea to put in a brief to present to the government, but I do not think there is any effectiveness to it.
I am a member of the Legion; but I still believe that it was ill-timed for the Legion to present this idea before they knew the government's program at this session. The subamendment asks the house to approve of reserve forces for home defence. I think I want to go a little further than did the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) the other night, when he spoke about the forces that were introduced into military service during the last war. He did not know it at the time, but I know now whom to blame for giving me the job of trying to take some of these home defence men and make them active. Perhaps some day I will be able to get back at him. That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Canadian army, when we took men in the home defence force under the universal training idea and gave them the status of home defence troops, at one time not even giving them the privilege of putting "Canada" on their sleeves. I

remember that in Petawawa they walked down one side of the street and we walked down the other side, because we had a little badge on our arms with the letters "G.S.", and they were not permitted to use it. That was the caste system in the lower ranks of the army; and we do not want that back again.
If we are going into a war-perhaps some of the higher officers know, but it is not known to the backbenchers-let us go into it right. Let us go into it with that equality of service mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). If my boy has to go into the army, let him go in on the same basis as any other boy. Let the government take the lead and put him in the army, if we need him; but let my boy be on the same status as anybody else.
I am going to speak for only a moment longer. Let me congratulate the Legion upon at least bringing the need for preparedness to the attention of the country. I think their idea with respect to the reserve force should not be supported, and I told them that in Vancouver. So far as the Social Credit party is concerned, I think the subamendment is something that should have been thought about longer than evidently they did think about it. I intend to vote against it.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just preceded me has referred to some of the policies carried out during the last war regarding manpower. I would agree with him that many of those policies deserve severe criticism. I would say further that some of them were absolutely despicable. But who put in those policies? The Liberal government did.
Let me remind the house of one or two things that were done. I remember how men were asked to be willing to volunteer for four months' training. They were definitely promised that at the end of that four months they would be allowed to return to their occupations. After the government got those men into the forces they were frozen there, and the government would not let them go back to their jobs. In other words they obtained those men under false pretences.
That has nothing to do with this subamendment, but it was Liberal policy. Then again I would agree that the kind of campaign which has been described as a zombie campaign, that was used in order to try and force men in the reserve army to go active, was also despicable. That, too, was government policy. It was the policy of the Liberal party.
I would say that if anything like that ever happened again, any officer responsible for carrying out such a policy should be disciplined. I realize that any member who
The Address-Mr. Quelch desires to vote against this subamendment will find it quite easy to make an excuse. So far however I have been struck by the weakness of the excuses that have been made. For example the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) stated that he supported the stand of the Legion but that he could not support the subamendment because it would mean something different, that it would mean setting up a different army. It is strange that he is the only man in the House of Commons who has come to that conclusion. Every other member who has spoken has recognized that our proposal is based upon the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. That was made clear when the subamendment was moved, and it has been made clear by every member of this group who has spoken. It has been clearly understood by other members in the house. Yet he, through some mysterious functioning of his mind, has jumped to the conclusion that this would set up an entirely different arm of the reserve army.
Let me read the subamendment, so that there may be no misunderstanding about it:
To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
Those words "compulsory training in the reserve forces" are the exact words used in the Legion's program, "operation preparedness". In order that there should be no misunderstanding on the point we have pointed out that we were putting it forward in the same way that the Legion was putting it forward.
It has been stated by some members that they agree with the general proposal to have compulsory training in the reserve army, but that they think the timing is wrong. They do not think it is wise to bring it up at this time. I would say that that depends largely on the seriousness of the international situation, and how great a degree of urgency there may be. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), when he spoke in the house, gave a very graphic description of the international situation, after describing the situation in China and in Korea, went on to say that at present there are a large number of danger spots in the world, and he made reference to Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia and Burma, and stated that if those countries came under the control of the communists India and Pakistan would be in a precarious position. He referred to the fact that both Persia and the Middle East were vulnerable, and also stressed the danger to Yugoslavia. Then he said that the danger to the free world is still greatest in western

The Address-Mr. Quelch Europe, and that we are now entering the period of the greatest danger, in the months ahead.
I think he made it quite clear that the situation in the world today is a very serious one. In his speech at Montreal the other day he mentioned the need for making haste. I would say that, with this picture in mind, and the knowledge that in Canada we have a very small population, considering the vast area over which that population is scattered, long lines of communication, great productive capacity, and great productive plants that have to be handled by this population, we should be careful indeed about the type of agreement that we sign under article 43 of the United Nations charter. If we sign agreements under that article of the charter by which we may be called upon to send forces to any part of the world where an act of aggression has been committed against a member of the United Nations we may find it impossible to meet our commitments under the North Atlantic treaty or to defend adequately our country against aggression, and of course, still further, to develop the resources of the country.
I regard the international situation today as being even more serious than the situation in either 1914 or 1939. I say that because the armed manpower against us is far more heavily weighted than it was on either of those former occasions. As is clearly pointed out in an article that appeared in the June issue of United Nations World headed in large letters, "Urgent" and with the subheading, "Memorandum on the Russian Military Power", Russia has 30,000,000 trained soldiers. The article continues:
Russia is convinced of its invincibility, of the absolute superiority of the red army over the armies of the capitalist world. All the people living under Russian rule are prepared ideologically and politically for war. Russia today has the strongest army in the world-about 170 infantry, 35 armoured and 60 artillery divisions. The peacetime strength of the red army amounts to 41 million men. The trained reserves are 25 milion. It can therefore lead into battle 30 million men.
And again:
The infantry is 60 to 70 per cent motorized, the artillery up to 80 per cent motorized.
In referring to armaments the article has this to say about tanks:
One should not repeat the mistake of underestimating Russian armament capacity. This mistake proved the doom of Germany. One must reckon on over 100,000 first-class tanks. The plants in Stalingrad alone produced in 1942 5,500 T-34's.
And finally:
In short, the Russians have at their disposal first-class weapons of their own manufacture. The American supplies in armaments were hardly noticeable during the war. At the front, only the

American trucks played an important part, but in the last few years Russia has expanded its production in this field too.
That indicates clearly the strength today of the armed forces of Russia, and it must be remembered that that article was written in June of last year. The article points out that the Russian air force is inferior to ours, but since June of last year Russia has greatly expanded its production of jet planes. These planes compare favourably with ours in the field although up to date the pilots have not proved to be as efficient.
Russia has no navy but, on the other hand, it has a strong submarine fleet. I think most people will agree that that is the only kind of fleet that Russia would require in the type of war she would probably be waging.
Therefore I say that there is no doubt that a very real danger exists. If war comes between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. it is well to remember that Canada could not escape the consequences. When the defence minister outlined the defence program he stated, and I quote from page 97 of Hansard of February 5, 1951, as follows:
Meeting these manpower requirements is going to require a big effort and the wholehearted support of all sections of the population.
In this program the main emphasis is being placed on the air force, and I think rightly so. The program calls for only a moderate expansion of the active" army. Therefore I think it is essential that the reserve army be thoroughly reorganized and strengthened because it is bound to have an important role to play in the next world war if we are unfortunate enough to run into one.
I notice that many people, including men in the forces, older generals and** others, suffer from what might be called a European complex. They recall that in world war I and world war II the fighting was mainly in Europe and mostly between European nations. But if there is a third world war the situation will be entirely different. Such a war would not be between European nations, it would be between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., with Canada sandwiched right in between the two countries. Many people have stated that in the event of another war Canada might well be the Belgium of that war.
That being the case I think it is obvious that the reserve army will play a most important role in helping to maintain our anti-aircraft defences and in preventing acts of sabotage across the country. No one in this house has stressed the importance of the reserve army more than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and he has done it most effectively. I should like to quote a statement made by the leader of the opposition

with reference to the reserve army, and I direct the attention of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) to the fact that this speech was made after the minister of defence had spoken and not before. The leader of the opposition is reported on page 287 of Hansard of February 12 as follows:
No one should underestimate the importance in the Canadian defence plan of the reserve army. One of the things that have not been answered in the debate, but which should be answered, is the statement by the senior officers of all the associations representing the different branches of the land forces, that any suggestion that the number of men we have in the reserve is an effective force for the defence of this country is a travesty of the facts. These men who made that statement are the men who know best of all what the state of training of the reserve units really is. They know better than the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). They know better than the general staff. They know better than anyone else because they are the ones who are actually assuming responsibility for that training. They have made the bald statement that we are not getting full value for our money in reserve training, and that any statement that we have 40,000 effectives, which has been made over and over again, is a travesty of the facts.
It is interesting to note what those men have suggested in the way of methods by which the reserve army could be made more effective. I should like to quote from the report of the brief of the conference of defence associations published in The Legionary for February, 1951. The extracts read as follows:
Years of experience have taught us all that to obtain anything like the number of men now required in the reserve force by voluntary means is impossible. Large sums have been spent on advertising and in other ways to induce men to join the reserve force. To a large extent such moneys have been wasted. The men have not been and are not coming forward.
If it is not to be Canadian policy to lean on our allies in the initial stages of a war-and we are satisfied that the national pride of our people will tolerate no such situation-then men must be made available for training now. This will involve a national registration system and the introduction of an enforceable and enforced system of selective service for the reserve force. Only in this way will the reserve force obtain the men it needs, the training it must have, and the effectiveness which the Canadian people are entitled to expect in view of the expenditures involved. Only in this way can we build a reserve force to which Canada can look with confidence.
Note that the conference of defence associations insists that there must be some form of compulsory selective service in order to maintain the reserve army up to strength. Mind you, this is the opinion of the men who the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) states know better than anybody else, and his statement to that effect was made after the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had spoken. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) states that such a policy would discourage men from enlisting. I find it hard to follow that reasoning. I cannot see why,
The Address-Mr. Quelch just because we might have some form of compulsory training of the reserve army, men would stop enlisting in the active service force. I would say that if anything it might have the opposite effect. At least those men who went overseas would have the satisfaction of knowing that we were training men at home to defend this country in case of an act of aggression, and in leaving their families at home there would be a better chance of their being defended than if we had no defence force at all.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred to shortage of equipment and suggested that it is useless to bring men into the reserve army if we have not the equipment with which to train them. Again I should like to refer to a statement appearing in the same issue of The Legionary quoting a statement by the Minister of National Defence. It reads:
In a statement to the Canadian press Mr. Claxton said that compulsory service is "a matter for the government and parliament." He denied that equipment shortages are, as the Legion claims, a major obstacle to any program of enforced training in the reserves.
Again, when he spoke in the house, as recorded at page 94 of Hansard, he stated:
The Canadian army . . . has in store or on issue most of the equipment for four divisions, even more of some weapons . . .
Surely nobody can argue that we will not have the equipment to equip these men if we take them into the reserve army when, according to the Minister of National Defence, we have equipment stored away for four divisions. The hon. member for Nanaimo states that we have not got the facilities. Nevertheless we should remember that in many parts of Canada our facilities are not being used to their full capacity, and that very few of the reserve army units are up to full strength. He talked about taking in hundreds of thousands of men. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) dealt with that question. The Legion has never suggested universal training of that kind. They have called for national registration, and as a result of national registration the government would have sufficient information upon which to decide the number of men that should be trained. In taking men into the reserve army they would be very careful to see that they would not take them in at a faster rate than they had facilities with which to train them.
The hon. member for Nanaimo also talked about a number of difficulties being in the way of compulsory service. I am surprised that he of all people should talk about difficulties and suggest that just because we have difficulties we should not go ahead with compulsory training. In wartime we always
406	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch face big difficulties but we overcome them. Surely nobody is going to suggest that we could not overcome the difficulties that would face us as a result of taking men into the reserve army. Remember that the men who are advocating this policy are the men who have been and are in charge of these units, officers' attending the conference of defence associations. Apparently they are quite confident that they can overcome any difficulties that may arise.
All members have received copies of the Legion program, "operation preparedness", so I am not going to go into details. I want to mention three points briefly. First of all there is the question of national registration which would provide the government with the information necessary to enable them to make the very best use of the manpower of the country. Second, there is the mobilization of industry for defence purposes. Again I think the reason for this is obvious. It would be for the purpose of bringing about maximum production of required goods. I think that in mobilizing our industrial resources we should do everything in our power to decentralize our industries. During the last war we unfortunately had a still greater concentration of industry in the east. If we are going to expand our industrial plants I think we should bring about decentralization as far as possible. We should try to build up regional zones and make them as selfsufficient as possible. In the last war one of the reasons Russia was able to fight back was that she had decentralized her industry. Therefore, as she was driven back, she had behind the Ural mountains industries that she was able to utilize. If all her industries had been concentrated in the areas that Germany conquered she might very well have been brought to her knees.
Then there is the question of compulsory training of men in the reserve forces. This would at least ensure that if an attack were made on Canada we would have men trained to defend the country, and also a source of reinforcements for the active forces. We believe that in the kind of world in which we are living today some form of compulsory training is absolutely essential. We believe that compulsory training in the reserve army would provide a maximum number of men with, at the same time, the least possible dislocation of industry. It is often stated that if a third war comes the enemy will move so fast we will not have time to train men. Fortunately the third war has not come yet. We still have time to train men, and it is up to us to see that we make the very best use of the time at our disposal to train men so that they will be in a position to defend 

Canada efficiently in the event of an attack, and in order that we may play a strong part under the North Atlantic treaty.
As I stated in the beginning, questions have been raised as to the timing and wisdom of this suggestion, for compulsory service. As far as time is concerned I would say we have already lost too much time and therefore should act as quickly as we can on this matter. As to its wisdom, if hon. members are suggesting that it would not be politically expedient then I would say that if the government would lay their cards upon the table face up I am satisfied the people of this country would be willing to make any sacrifice necessary in order that we in Canada might continue to be a free people.


Mr. C. T. Richard (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house for a few moments whilst I discuss a few matters I believe to be of importance. Let me begin with those famous first words: "I intend to be brief."
First I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr, McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the able manner in which they carried out their difficult task. I do not know whether they have had previous experience in parliamentary debate, but they discharged the duty assigned to them in a manner worthy of veterans. Both hon. members represent very important constituencies and very honourable professions, the mover being a member of the medical fraternity and the seconder a member of the bar. Each was a leader in his profession in his own, community, and I am sure that in deciding to enter public life they realized, as some of us have come to realize, that they would be making a sacrifice. From their first efforts in this house, however, I am sure they will meet with success as servants of the people.
Before entering into a discussion of the topics I propose to deal with, I should like to pay tribute to three departed parliamentarians who were well known to a great many members of this house. I refer to the late members for Brandon, Queens, and Kindersley. All these gentlemen possessed noble qualities of soul and mind which endeared them to all who knew them, and many of our lives were in some measure enriched by the friendship we enjoyed with them. To their bereaved families I extend my deepest sympathy, and I am sure all hon. members who knew those gentlemen share my feelings.
We are passing through a very serious period in our history. We are called upon to make sacrifices, to practise self-denial,

to increase our material production, and especially to tighten our ranks so we may have that unity so essential in a crisis of this kind. We need have no fear. Our nation, which has gone through two great wars and emerged so successfully, can again cope with the situation and take its place beside the major powers of the world in the defence of democracy and liberty.
Domestically we possess all that is required to achieve these ends. We may, by great effort, increase our production for the benefit of all. On the international front I believe Canada is doing her share; and I am sure the efforts of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at Lake Success during the last two or three years have won the admiration of the Canadian people, more especially in the role he played lately when he attempted to obtain a cease-fire in Korea. He has risen in the esteem of our people, and has won a niche as one of the foremost statesmen of the world. In listening to him in this house the other day I am sure everyone appreciated that we had a minister of foreign affairs who can match anyone at Lake Success.
I confess that I have no profound knowledge of the intricacies of diplomacy or foreign affairs. I am but an amateur, like many others, and probably in speaking on these matters I am rushing in where angels fear to tread. Yet I must refer to certain policies adopted by the Atlantic pact nations, which we as a member of that pact must follow, which contain some contradictions. It is hard to follow the pattern of these foreign policies. We are justly proud of the fact that our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was the first to suggest the North Atlantic treaty alliance, but when it was suggested we had no doubt it would be difficult to bring together all the nations which needed the protection of such an alliance since some of them, including the Scandinavian countries and those we call the low countries, were so close to Russia they might be hesitant about joining such a pact. It was only after much persuasion that we were able to gather together the nations circling the north Atlantic; but many of us cannot understand why Spain was not included.
I agree with the suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) that we should try to bring Spain into this pact. We continue to treat Spain with disdain. We refuse her the right to participate in the deliberations under the North Atlantic pact. I was surprised the other day to read a dispatch in which Prime Minister Attlee was quoted as saying that Spain was not necessary, that Spain would not contribute anything if it
The Address-Mr. C. T. Richard joined the North Atlantic pact. Have we forgotten that Spain was the first nation in Europe to fight communism? If communism had been implanted in that important and strategic part of Europe, could we have won Italy against communism, as we did? We included Italy, a former enemy, in the North Atlantic pact, but we are denying Spain the same participation, and are even denying her a seat at Lake Success.
The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) said this afternoon-and I quite share his opinion-that we need all the allies that we can get. Yes, indeed; in my opinion the free nations banded together in the North Atlantic pact need all the assistance, the friendship and the co-operation they can get from all the nations having the common concepts of Christian civilization which we have; I think especially of Spain. Probably we deplore the methods employed by Franco in achieving power; but were those methods any worse than those employed by the Russian regime, by Marshal Tito, or by any of those in power today in those countries which form part of the Russian bloc?
It seems to me that we have forgotten the sins of others but yet are not ready to cross the threshold of opportunity to bring about a rapprochement with Spain. I repeat that we need as many allies as we can get. Let us not forget that communism today controls one-third of the people of this earth and one-half of the area of the globe. Therefore it is important that we should have on our side all the democratic countries that we can gather together.
It is true that our relations with the South American countries are quite cordial. Yet I believe that they could be better. Probably we may not be able to say the same about the relations existing between that great country to the south of us and the South American countries. I can see no better way of bringing the countries of North and South America together than by recognizing Spain, which most of these South American countries regard as the mother country. Let us not forget that South America-and perhaps a good many do not know this-has a population of some 150 million people.
The spectre of communism is of such a grave character that the democratic countries cannot neglect any opportunity of winning friends to combat communism. We cannot remain complacent. We must throw away our prejudices. We must look at things from a different point of view. All means must be employed to fight communism, especially where it is sneaking in as it is both in this country and in the United States.

The Address-Mr. C. T. Richard
Behind the iron curtain today are millions of people who at one time possessed democratic governments and enjoyed freedom of worship. Of this great number some 50 millions in countries such as Hungary, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, are Roman Catholics. These people never have and never can become communists no matter how long communism may have a stranglehold on the country. To them democracy cannot exist without religion and religion cannot exist without democracy; for both have a common ideal, a common cornerstone, as it were, namely the dignity of man. They realize that today the communist regimes have recognized the fact that their worst enemy is the church and that they must stifle and eradicate all religious beliefs amongst these people in order to win. The Reds plan the conquest of all religious life in Europe. The persecution of such intellectual lights and great religious leaders as Cardinal Mindszenty, Cardinal Beran and other Catholic prelates was not carried out because they wished to attack the Catholic church more than any other sect. Protestant leaders were also persecuted as well as Zionist leaders. It is quite evident that communism fights all sects and that communism feels that it cannot succeed as long as there is a certain religious belief in the hearts of the people. They have plainly made their intention known by a manifesto which was issued last July at Prague for the purpose of rallying the communists in their fight against the church. Let me read from that manifesto and let me point out these extraordinary things. The manifesto reads as follows:
The church -
And I would note here that no particular church is indicated; the word is general.
-is our greatest enemy. This enemy is centred in the peasantry-
I wish to note again here that no particular church is indicated where they say "peasantry", meaning thereby that that is where probably the religious belief is strongest; that is, in that class of society. The manifesto continues:
-and unless we liquidate this opposition we shall not be able to conquer resistance in the villages as to the establishment of co-operatives-
Meaning collectives.
-and completion of our socialist program. There the communist party must gain strong foundation in the villages.
It is quite clear that the communist regime of those countries behind the iron curtain wishes to destroy independence of worship and to extinguish the flame of democracy. It is therefore regrettable that this country has not yet seen fit to appoint an accredited representative to the Vatican where perhaps


more information may be obtained as to conditions behind the iron curtain than in any other capital in Europe. The Vatican is one of the outstanding diplomatic posts in the world today because of the large number of diplomats accredited to the Holy See, which numbers some 400 million adherents.
Let me assure the house that I do not make the suggestion because Rome or the Vatican happens to be the seat of the religion to which I adhere. Far from me be any such motive. I may say that I am prompted in bringing up this subject more by the fact that I happened to be in Rome a few months ago. I spent some time there. I had read much about the life that went on behind the iron curtain. While in Rome, amongst the thousands of visitors there during the Holy Year, I met hundreds of them. I had an opportunity to obtain information of what went on. Some of them came from countries behind the iron curtain, others from countries adjacent to it. They were people who had firsthand knowledge of conditions as they existed there. I was impressed with the great desire of these people, who are being subjected to communism, to keep a link with the western countries, and a desire for help to keep the flame of democracy alive and to keep the little liberty of worship they still possessed.
In suggesting that we should have a representative at the Vatican let me assure this house that I do not mean that he should be of any particular sect. In my estimation he should not be a representative at the Holy See because His Holiness is head of the Catholic church. He should be a representative at the Vatican because His Holiness is a sovereign in his own right, and that is the way he is recognized by nations who have accredited representatives there from the East where the Mohammedan religion dominates and where probably the Christian sects are very little known. They have representatives at the Holy See because His Holiness is a temporal ruler and not because he is the head of any particular church.
I know that there is still some opposition to our sending a representative to the Holy See under the false belief that it would be a recognition of a particular religion. But other countries do not view it in that light. Great Britain has had a representative at the Vatican for years, and the latest dispatches tell us that the United States will send one. Therefore we should regard it from another and more practical point of view. We should forget the religious part of it.
I believe that in this country we have reached a certain period in our history where we can see it is time to forget our petty differences and jealousies in matters of creed

or race. Every day I read of the great strides that this country is making in the development of our resources, in the expansion of our trade and of our wealth, and I am sure that other hon. members feel as I do as I read this every day. I feel proud of my country. I feel that it is the best in the world. It is well that we should be told of its great progress; but there is another sphere in which we have made progress in this country during the last twenty years, a progress which has been noticeable. I believe we have come to understand one another better. I believe there is not the ill feeling between races and creeds in this country that existed some twenty or twenty-five years ago. There may be some differences yet, but I believe we have made progress, and we should mention it.
Probably the two world wars which we have gone through have brought about this better feeling. Some call it tolerance. Lately I have come to realize that this word "tolerance" is abused an awful lot. Tolerance means to forbear, to forgive something which should not exist, to accept a necessary evil. I do not believe we should use the word "tolerance". In describing the better feeling which exists between the different races and creeds in this country we should call it respect for the ideas, the languages, the beliefs and the customs of others. To me that is more descriptive than tolerance.
According to the newspapers next week we celebrate brotherhood week. What better way could we observe it than by keeping in mind and trying to foster ways and means of coming to a better understanding of one another, bringing on a more intensified unity, a unity which is so essential today in this serious period of our history and the history of mankind.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall detain the house only five minutes in order to discuss a matter arising out of a question which I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon. The question had to do with the South Saskatchewan irrigation project. I do not think it is necessary at this "time for me to explain to most hon. members what that project is. It contemplates the building of a huge dam on the South Saskatchewan river in the dust bowl of my province. In the past, the Minister of Agriculture has been one of the strongest advocates of that project. There have always, however, been many excuses why it could not be started. A little more than a year ago, one of the minister's excuses was that provincial co-operation was not forthcoming in paying its share of the cost.
The Address-Mr. Thatcher
This afternoon I asked the minister whether the Saskatchewan government had agreed to pay $33 million toward the cost of the irrigation project, and his answer was:
I would rather say that I have a letter from the Saskatchewan government, in which they have urged that construction be proceeded with, and have agreed to take as a basis of discussion $33 million on the part of the provincial government, and the farmers and others who are interested, but I would not like to say that they have agreed to make that payment. It was merely suggested as a basis of discussion.
I do not know why the minister could not have given me a yes or no to my question. I do not know why he had to answer so ambiguously.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell him now why,
because I had a letter from the premier in my hand, and that is what he said.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I must differ; what are the
facts about this irrigation project? The provincial government has always maintained, as I think most Liberal speakers have maintained until the C.C.F. came into power in Saskatchewan, that this irrigation project was primarily a federal project. We heard very little until about a year ago about the fact that the provincial government would be expected to pay a large portion of these costs.
In discussing his estimates on October 14, 1949, the minister made this statement, as reported in Hansard at page 812:
We must have assurances from somebody that an organization will be set up to utilize the water, and that they are going to contribute a share of the cost sufficient to ensure that they will take some responsibility for seeing that the work is carried on.
In other words, he went on to point out that the provincial government would have to pay a substantial share of the cost. We felt that this was not in the best interests of the nation, first of all because provincial revenues are so limited and, secondly, because the federal government has had such huge surpluses since the end of the war. It seemed obvious that the federal government, because the project was national in scope, should be able to proceed more satisfactorily. However, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has refused since that time to discuss the subject, except on the basis that the province would pay a substantial amount.
Finally, two weeks ago the minister went to Regina, I understand, and met the Saskatchewan government. They told him, in effect, that they still felt it was a federal responsibility. However, in order to get the project started, and in order to try to get the work under way, they were reluctantly prepared to bear a share of the costs. They asked for specific information as to what was involved.
410	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Thatcher
I understand that the province was told it would have to be responsible, first, for $19 million to build a distribution system; secondly, for an estimated $6 million for levelling the land-the water owners would pay part eventually-and, thirdly, for $8 million to instal hydroelectric installations. The federal government would pay $68 million for the dam. In others words, the federal government was asking the government of Saskatchewan to pay the staggering sum of $33 million. The Minister of Agriculture certainly threw down a challenge when he asked them to find that amount of money.
However, the provincial government was so anxious to see the work started that after much consideration, even though the costs involved were so heavy, even though they still thought the matter was a federal responsibility, and even though their revenues were limited, they decided they would proceed on the basis of the figure that was outlined to them by the Minister of Agriculture and his departmental officials. The premier of the province has made this specific commitment to the minister, as he mentioned in a letter a moment ago:
As soon as the federal government has announced its intention to proceed with this undertaking we are prepared to negotiate and sign an agreement on the basis of the allocation of costs outlined above.
In other words the provincial government is prepared to raise $33 million. How they will do it I do not know, but they are ready to go ahead with the project. They have agreed to the proposal, even though they think the terms are very severe. They are going to go along with it because they have to; they have accepted the minister's challenge.


James Garfield Gardiner: What the hon. member should be concerned about, as a federal member, is finding the $68 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What we want to know is this: In view of this commitment, when can the project be started? The Saskatchewan legislature is meeting at the present time, and I suppose the project would have to be endorsed, by that legislature. If so, why not without delay send the agreement out so that it can be ratified? I believe it would be passed unanimously. I know every C.C.F. member of the legislature would support it, and I presume it would have the support of every Liberal member there.
I suggest that the international situation is such, and the defence situation is such, that we should try to diversify our industry in a way that the building of this dam would


make possible. I would remind the house of what the Minister of Agriculture said a few years ago:
Development of irrigation and power on the South Saskatchewan river by means of the Outlook dam would mean industrial and agricultural development of western Canada similar to the Essen country of Germany.
Today we are facing the problem of inflation. We need greater production. Let us make an Essen in this part of western Canada, as the minister suggested. I believe that the citizens of Saskatchewan, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, or C.C.F., will be bitterly disappointed if, because of the international situation, the government decides to postpone this much needed work for a further period of time. I believe there is no major project needed as much in Canada today as this irrigation scheme, and in that statement I include the St. Lawrence seaway development.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some of the inaccuracies in the speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer).


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have not time for that, surely.


James Arthur Ross: I will just refer to it, because it is not the chief subject about which I rose to speak. The hon. member is reported at page 361 of Hansard as saying:
If members of the House of Commons were in agreement with the British wheat contract, then every agreeing member of the House of Commons signed.
I have at no time agreed with that contract. Then, later on he says:
Some people estimate that the loss has been fifty cents a bushel, but I have not heard one member say what the world price of No. II wheat would have been if the 1,400 million bushels of grain sold under the British contract had been placed on the open market.
I am amazed that we have a member of parliament from the prairie provinces who does not know more than that about the contract-because most ordinary farmers do know more. I think it is realized that under that contract 600 million bushels were to be delivered. The balance of 1,400 million bushels was sold-at least much of it-to consumers in Canada. I am amazed that that there is any member in any party from the three prairie provinces who would even imply that the farmers of the prairie provinces should subsidize the consumers of Canada as well as of Great Britain. I thought the hon. member would have known more about the terms of the contract than he indicated in his speech yesterday. I have great respect for him; I think he is a great orator, and he

gave us a most entertaining fifty minutes yesterday when he began naming the public officials of several nations-and did not pass up the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), saying that he should be named Mr. Grain Exchange. I want to thank him-and I would say that I think he must have been in bed at some time with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), because certainly he is imitating the minister's technique. When he is out on any of the rural hustings in his native province of Manitoba he always goes out of his way to link the name of the hon. member for Souris with some of his friends of the Winnipeg grain exchange. The hon. member was so like the minister that I wished to refer to the fact in passing. I think if the hon. member would discuss in detail this wheat problem and many other problems concerning his farming constituency with his deskmate, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), he would find it very beneficial. Because while the hon. member for Moose Mountain, who has been a neighbour of mine for many years, may not be the windy orator that the hon. member for Maple Creek is, still he is a good, sound and sensible type of farmer, and understands the problems of his constituency very well. I would advise him to confer with the hon. member for Moose Mountain before making statements such as he made yesterday, and especially when they concern the British wheat contract. What he has said does not do the hon. member justice in his own riding-and may I say he represents a very fine riding.
However, I rose at this time to speak about the subamendment, because I am greatly concerned about it. First of all I want to endorse wholeheartedly the principle set forth so eloquently by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I thought he spoke as a great Canadian.
I believe I can speak with some knowledge of the subject. I say, with some degree of humility, that I have had a little experience with the reserve forces in this country. In my very early teens it was my privilege to serve as batman to an officer in a reserve unit. I want to pay tribute to the officers and N.C.O.'s and men of the reserve forces of Canada at this time. They give a very great deal of their service and time in a worthwhile effort. I know how beneficial the reserve forces were in raising men for the armed services during the first war. They were most helpful, as they were again in the second world war.
Then, following the first world war, it was my privilege to serve in almost all
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross phases of a reserve unit, and to serve finally as O.C. Without detracting in any way from the splendid service those people perform, I wish to tell the house that this subamendment is the most impractical piece of

well, I will not say "nonsense", but I will say that I do not understand the meaning behind it at all. I want to tell the house that I have great respect and admiration for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party, who moved it. But in my opinion, and from my experience, it is most impractical.
Before I forget I should like to congratulate the Canadian Legion. I have been a member of that great organization since its inception. It was my privilege to attend their convention at Winnipeg last fall when this whole matter was discussed. I want to tell hon. members that the matter upon which they will be called to vote now is not the motion which was voted on at the Legion convention last fall. I should like to make that quite clear as people have quoted portions of this "operation preparedness" pamphlet.
I endorse the principle of this pamphlet. I certainly am in favour of national registration. I am in favour of mobilization for industry, for agriculture; the mobilization of our manpower. But to endorse this subamendment would be a retrograde step. Reference was made yesterday to the N.R.M.A. during the last war and the difficulties that were encountered at that time. I do not think anybody was at all happy about those experiences. I am sure that if we endorsed this subamendment it would create a much worse system. I say that with all respect for and pride in the reserve forces of this country.
Let us see how this would work out. There are many areas in this country where there is not a semblance of a reserve force organization. I know some constituencies where there is no organization whatever, no armoury, no equipment. If we were to have what was advocated this evening by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) then this is what would happen in certain districts in Manitoba. Young chaps on the farm doing their daily work, doing the chores that are necessary such as milking cows, feeding hogs and other things, might be called upon to drive as far as 200 or 300 miles to do their training in the evening. Is that feasible or possible or practical? To me the thing is just absurd.
In fairness to some of the members of the executive of the Canadian Legion I think I should say that perhaps they got a little ahead of themselves in this third paragraph.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross I am well acquainted with some of these chaps and I know that when you speak to them now they will point out that even though the reserve forces may be well organized in cities like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver, there would likely be difficulties under compulsory service. I can picture the officers under compulsory service with their orderly parades and faced with the problem of absenteeism. I can see them trying to check at the homes of the men to find out why they were not on parade. It just does not make sense, even in the cities. It certainly would be most detrimental to the industry of this country and to agricultural production.
Talk about equality of service and sacrifice. It would only add to the inequality of service and sacrifice at a time such as this. Remember, this is not for front line, active service; this is for the reserve forces. You have the cart before the horse. I feel keenly about this. Another pamphlet has been issued which is a compromise since the convention held in Winnipeg last September. On the first inside page the following appears, and remember this is the Legion talking:
We have reason to believe that the chief obstacles in the way of implementing the Legion's demands are a serious shortage of ships, planes, equipment, and even boots and clothing, and the admitted absence of adequate trained personnel, accommodation, and other facilities necessary to any immediate appreciable expansion of the reserve forces.
That is the very issue we are confronted with by the subamendment. That is set forth in that paragraph in the latest pamphlet published by the Legion. They have made a survey across the nation and they know it is not feasible. I ask you in all frankness to be fair about this.
I am not satisfied about our manpower situation today. When I spoke the other night following the extended remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) I pointed out that to have our services on a comparative basis with the United States of America-our requirements should be somewhat similar-instead of having 148,000 men in the services three years from now we would have to have 318,000 personnel in the armed services of this nation. That would be necessary in order to compare on a per capita basis with what the United States expects to have by June of this year.
It is not satisfactory. Their objective is greater than the objectives we have in mind. The Legion point that out in this pamphlet which I think has been mailed to most members of the House of Commons as well as having been freely distributed throughout the country.
[Mr. Ross (Souris) .1

When I make these remarks I am not unmindful of the fact that I probably shall have to account to the people I represent. I would remind the house that during the last great war my constituency probably had as great a per capita enlistment rate as any constituency in Canada. When the plebiscite was held, I think in 1942, that constituency registered the greatest "yes" vote of any rural riding in Canada. The only riding to exceed Souris was the riding of Eglinton. It will be seen that these people are quite patriotic and are prepared to make sacrifices in the defence of this great nation.
As I have pointed out before, the government possesses avenues of information not open to us. Before I came to Ottawa I was asked some embarrassing questions by the people of my riding. They wanted to know where their money was going and what the manpower situation was. The members of this group, as well as members of the other opposition groups, have put up a concerted effort to get information on this subject. We have had to ask for information from the ministers who have their staffs and other avenues of information.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other night that if this was not satisfactory he would be prepared to bring in all-out conscription for active service. That is away ahead of what we are asking for right here. I do not know how we can do anything else but take him at his word for the time being. I appeal to everybody to be practical about this thing. I do not know why the .subamendment was brought in. I have said that I have great confidence in the hon. member who introduced it, but as one who has had rather considerable experience in the reserve services I think it is most impractical. It is nothing but a retrograde step. If we make any move, let us be sure it is something worth while for this nation.
I am prepared to explain to the people whom I represent that I have endorsed this brief of the Legion asking for total preparedness. I am wholly in accord with national registration in order to see where we are at. I think that must go ahead of everything else. I am in favour of total mobilization for industry and agricultural production. The Legion themselves admit that this subamendment will not work. At this time let us be practical. Let us put Canada first and do what we think is best in the interests of this country and of the great United Nations.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, at the present time I am going to deal only with the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). For the reasons which were

admirably and objectively stated by the hon. member tor Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and several other hon. members, the policy proposed in the amendment to the amendment is not acceptable to the government.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to have the opportunity to say a few words on this subject. I have been somewhat amused at the concerted efforts of some of the Conservatives to throw their arms around the Liberals so far as this subject is concerned. I have never heard better Liberal speeches on any subject since I have been in the house-and I have been here for fifteen years-than those made by some of the Conservatives in praise of the government program. I was also somewhat amused at the remarks made by some members when they referred to the deplorable conditions that existed during world war II. They spoke of the contemptible way in which our armed forces were called to service, and those of us who were here can well* remember that. Nevertheless nearly all the Conservative members and the C.C.F. members who have spoken to date would condone the government carrying on that type of policy.
I say "that type of policy" for the reason that they are willing to put their trust in the hands of the same party that conducted the last war, and in fact in a government with almost the same personnel. Unless they have had a great change of heart-I would not go so far as that-the results must be the same. I was rather pleased when I heard the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in speaking during this debate. He was very much agitated-and I thought rightly so-because of the poor preparations being made at the present time for the defence of our country. I listened to his speech, read it over carefully, and I want to refer to one or two parts of it. The leader of the opposition said certain things that I think were outstanding and I want to put them on Hansard. At page 21 of Hansard for February 1, he said:
Many alarming details have come to light within the past few weeks. It was with astonishment that those who were aware of our shortage of weapons learned that a government arsenal, which could have been making modern weapons, was making shotguns to be sold for sporting purposes.
Listening yesterday and today to some of the Conservative speakers praising the government for its effort, one would not think that it would be doing such a thing as that. Then the leader of the opposition went on to say:
It was with equal astonishment that we learned it was necessary to send Canadian forces to the United States to train, although we have been spending so much money on the many large military camps across Canada. But details of that kind
The Address-Mr. Johnston are in themselves not nearly so alarming as the statement issued a few weeks ago by the conference of defence associations.
The leader of the opposition is pointing out that these are alarming things, and he is emphasizing their importance. Nevertheless the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) got up the other day and said he had confidence that the government would carry out the suggestions which they have made. How contradictory can they be? Let me continue with what the leader of the opposition had to say about the conference of defence associations.


Mr. Pearkes:: On a question of privilege, I never said any such words as the hon. member is putting into my mouth. The very fact that our party has an amendment which might be interpreted as a want of confidence motion is evidence that he has misunderstood my remarks.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think I misunderstood at all the inferences and implications of the hon. member for Nanaimo. His point was very clear. I was going to say that in my estimation he was trying to ride the fence but I suppose he would object to that term, so I will not use it.


Mr. Ferguson:: Read his speech; it is in Hansard.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will before I am through.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We will just see what you can understand.


Charles Edward Johnston: Some people did not seem to understand what their own party stood for when the leader of the opposition was speaking because they have so readily changed their minds. Now they are about to throw their arms around the government. As one expressed it, they are afraid to be on the spot on this particular question. They would be if they faced this problem fairly and squarely, but I would rather face it squarely than try to sit on the fence when the welfare of the nation and our very existence is dependent on our preparation. The leader of the opposition does not think we are very well prepared. Make no mistake about that. He pointed that out quite clearly. He went on to speak about the conference of defence associations. He placed some reliance on what they had to say, and I should like to put it on the record so that we all can see. He went on to say:
To appreciate the importance of their statement, we must recall that this annual conference of defence associations brings together senior officers appointed by each of the military associations which represent all the different services of the Canadian army. These are the men who are actually serving in our reserve forces. These are the men who are in close contact with our permanent forces as well. These are the men who are largely

The Address-Mr. Johnston responsible for interpreting the opinion of those who are in uniform. That conference represents the highest possible authority in regard to the actual state of training of our reserve forces, upon which the land defence of Canada or our participation in any collective plan must still in the main depend.
Recognizing the special position they occupy, and the absolute impartiality of the views they express, let me quote from the statement presented to the government less than a month ago by the conference of defence associations.
I am not going to repeat all the passage that he has quoted. I shall take one section of it which reads:
To say that the reserve force is 40,000 strong, and to give the Canadian people the idea that it has 40,000 men who could quickly be ready for action, is a travesty of the facts. There are few, if any, reserve units in Canada that could be ready to function in action under a minimum period of six months. This includes AA . . .
That is a pretty sorry condition for our defences to be in. Nevertheless the hon. member for Nanaimo said that he thought the Legion would not have made that statement, or issued their manifesto, if they had waited until the government had put their plan forward. I do not think it would have made any difference to the Legion. We have not got very much information from the government so far about what they are actually going to do or when they are going to do it. The hon. member for Nanaimo must remember that the Legion has not forgotten the subject even up to this time. We are still receiving telegrams and communications from the Legion despite the fact that this subject is before the house and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has given us his plans. Apparently they are not satisfied.
Then the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) went on to say that the Legion might have given this a little more thought, might have taken a little more precaution in the timing, might have waited until the government brought down its platform and so on. Does he realize that the Conservative amendment was moved in this house before the announcement was made by the Minister of National Defence, just as the Legion program was announced before that program was brought down? Yet I have not noticed the Conservatives withdrawing their amendment. Let me read the part I want to refer to.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, 1 can put it all on Hansard. It was moved by your leader.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Read it all so we can understand it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Very well; if you cannot understand it from reading it, I will read it for you.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You only read snatches of it; that is why you cannot understand it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course I have to judge the mental capacity of those to whom I am reading. The amendment reads:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present grave danger:
To hear some of the Conservatives speak now, especially the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), you would not think we were facing much of a danger.
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations:
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.
Let me refer to the second paragraph again: "to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself." It is obvious that the forces are not here to defend us. That was in almost the same words used by the Legion, and it was put on Hansard before the minister made his statement. So if the Legion is wrong the Conservative party is wrong, and they should withdraw their amendment rather than embarrass some of their members by having them vote for it.
Some of us in this house apparently do not view our unpreparedness with the sense of alarm felt by others. I want to refer to an article that appeared in Maclean's magazine of February 15, 1950, in regard to the danger we face, written by Nicholas Ignatieff, of whom they have this to say:
The author is a trained engineer who knows northern Canada intimately. He went overseas in 1940 as a lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Engineers. Because of his knowledge of the Russians he was seconded to the British war office for intelligence duties to assist in plotting the probable actions of our Russian allies, who volunteered little of the information so vital to our own strategy. He became head of this section of intelligence and was decorated by the British and Americans. He retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1947 and is at present warden of Hart House, University of Toronto. Ignatieff spends the summer at his homestead in northern British Columbia near the Alaska highway-which, he points out in the accompanying article, may be on Russia's doorstep if war comes.
This is what he has to say, after referring to the Persian oil fields:
Their next major objective, I believe, would be to tie down North American forces in the defence of North America. Because they are unlikely to be capable of a major invasion of this continent by sea or air, their actions would be primarily directed at creating maximum alarm and confusion in the hope of provoking a public outcry against sending troops abroad and war material abroad. To achieve this they would probably send a considerable force to Alaska, accompanied by bands of tough Siberian troops landed by air in the Canadian north.

Their object would be not only to keep America worried and guessing as to the real scope and direction of Soviet intentions but to keep large American forces tied down in hunting these bands over the immense expanse of our northland.
Another objective would be to infiltrate saboteurs among our heterogeneous population to conduct planned and controlled sabotage through a series of blows at widely divergent points.
The forces in the north could act in a wireless-liaison capacity with the soviet G.H.Q. and might even hope to pass supplies to saboteurs. They could probably spare a major effort for Alaska and, unless communications with that area are much improved, the Russians would tie down a considerable part of our air strength in fighting and supplying the battle for Alaska.
For these operations the soviets could rely on a large native population in Siberia; many would be almost indistinguishable from our Eskimos and Indians. These people and Russian Siberian troops composed some of the toughest divisions in the red army and had wide experience in winter warfare in world war II.
I ask you to call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. PRIVILEGE



REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON FEBRUARY 15

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wonder if I might raise a point of privilege, in order to put the record straight. During
Privilege-Mr. Garson
the debate this evening I understood the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) to make a statement to the effect that I had gone about my constituency discussing the British wheat contract and in connection therewith had coupled his name with that of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I would not want the hon. member to think I had ever done any such thing. The views of the hon. member on the British wheat contract are quite well known and speak for themselves; and I have never thought it necessary to couple his name with that of the Winnipeg grain exchange in order that his position in that connection might be understood.
What I have said, however, and perhaps this is the matter to which he is referring, is that I regarded his views concerning the dominion-provincial tax agreements, especially as they applied to the province of Manitoba, as quite erroneous; and I have indeed in this connection coupled his name with those of two Winnipeg citizens, one of whom happens to be a prominent member of the grain exchange. This is however a matter that has no relation at all to grain marketing, or to the Winnipeg grain exchange.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 16, 1951